Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 7

 

2009-10-04 14:27:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5757|London, England

ATG wrote:

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Hah! I was just about to post the same thing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oc … state-debt

So will we get all the Bush-lovers saying this is all Obama's fault? Probably.
Nope, this is the end result of liberal ideology in practice.
reaganomics blow.

there seems to be no good answer.
Of course there is. Austerity.

What California needs to figure out is a way to keep it's tax receipts steady. Fluctuations occur with income and sales taxes but property is always owned by someone. More states need to follow the example of New Hampshire and do away with sales and income taxes in favor of higher property taxes. This does not favor renters over landowners as the common argument would be, rent would go up to cover the increase. Once you go to a system of taxation such as this, tax receipts become steady and you can plan your government spending accordingly.

Now, coupled with this, they need to really prioritize spending. Government is always inefficient because it has no competition. They need to get rid of redundant programs and programs that blatantly don't work or are abused. This is all common sense but it would take a very strong leader to make it happen. Frankly, the infrastructure in California should be the highest priority of the state legislature. Social programs are nice, and they win you votes, but you can't keep borrowing from the future to pay for today. Eventually that future bill comes due, and in California's case, the future is now.

Also, stop wasting billions of dollars by building a stupid solar power plant in the middle of the desert just to placate the greenies in your state. Encourage your power companies to build nuclear plants. The power is cheap and infinite.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-10-04 14:33:16)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-04 14:59:14
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6928|Global Command
Actually, nuclear power is not green or safe, to CP:


In reality, not only are vast amounts of fossil fuels burned to mine and refine the uranium for nuclear power reactors, polluting the atmosphere, but those plants are allowed "to emit hundreds of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year," Dr. Helen Caldicott, the antinuclear authority, points out in her book "Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer"(The New Press).

What's more, the thousands of tons of solid radioactive waste accumulating in the cooling pools next to those plants contain "extremely toxic elements that will inevitably pollute the environment and human food chains, a legacy that will lead to epidemics of cancer, leukemia, and genetic disease in populations living near nuclear power plants or radioactive waste facilities for many generations to come," she writes. Countless Americans are already dead or dying as a result of those nuclear plants and that story is not being effectively told.

To begin with, over half of the nation's dwindling uranium deposits lie under Navajo and Pueblo tribal land, and at least one in five tribal members recruited to mine the ore were exposed to radioactive gas radon 220 and "have died and are continuing to die of lung cancer," Caldicott writes. "Thousands of Navajos are still affected by uranium-induced cancers," she adds.

As for uranium tailings discarded in the extraction process, 265-million tons of it have been left to pile up in, and pollute, the Southwest, even though they contain radioactive thorium. At the same time, uranium 238, also known as "depleted uranium,"(DU) a discarded nuclear plant biproduct, "is lying around in thousands of leaking, disintegrating barrels" at the enrichment facilites in Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Ky., where ground water is now too polluted to drink, Caldicott writes.

Fuel rods at every nuclear plant leak radioactive gases or are routinely vented into the atmosphere by plant operators. "Although the nuclear industry claims it is 'emission' free, in fact it is collectively releasing millions of curies annually," the author notes.











solar power and wind are the future, until new tech like cold fusion is available.
2009-10-04 15:07:47
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5757|London, England

ATG wrote:

solar power and wind are the future, until new tech like cold fusion is available.
I'm not saying they aren't. Electrical Engineering is my future and I would love nothing more than to design new solar and wind plants that are efficient and cost effective. Nothing.

However, the fastest and easiest way to remove our energy dependence is to build nuclear plants like crazy, move completely to electric vehicles, electric heating etc and THEN you start replacing the nuclear plants with solar, wind, thermal etc. You must trade short term pollution for long term
'greenness'. It is the burning of fossil fuels that creates the excessive carbon in the atmosphere. Why not just go straight to 'green energy' instead of nuclear in the short term? Because the technology is there, it works, and current green technology is severely limited by the weather. Unless you want your air conditioning shut off in the middle of the night this is really the only solution.

Or, conversely, you can continue listening to idiots like the one you quoted that have led your state economy into the dumpster. I think the choice is easy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-04 15:12:44
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5799
yall tried solar but it got shoved aside because of some squirrels.  and where are you going to get the money for this stuff?  fact is you guys did this to yourselves by allowing your state to become a liberal mess.  i hope they do not use my tax money to bail you guys out.
2009-10-04 15:18:45
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6928|Global Command
Why is it Germany has a successful solar program where the energy producers actually buy back the power at ten times market rate? They still make a profit and the country has solar panels everywhere.

Germany is not exactly famous for its sunshine like California is.

And you totally ignored what I said about the problems associated with getting raw materials into a nuclear plant; the mining, the by products, where the ore deposits are located and all the hassles associated with waste.


Nuclear power seems great when you first look at it, but the more you look the worse it gets.

Also building reactors will mostly benefit a select few contractors who have the ability to make them, and most of them are not U.S. companies. Solar and wind is relatively low tech and has lots of jobs for ordinary people.

Also, people complaining about how we don't drill for oil off the coast more don't understand geology. There are consequences for removing massive amounts of material from the Earth as things tend to settle.

The time is right for massive wind and solar projects and a new aqua duct to bring water from the North and/or East.
2009-10-04 15:20:00
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5799

ATG wrote:

Why is it Germany has a successful solar program where the energy producers actually buy back the power at ten times market rate? They still make a profit and the country has solar panels everywhere.

Germany is not exactly famous for its sunshine like California is.
i am amazed you have to ask why.  truly.
2009-10-04 15:24:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5757|London, England

ATG wrote:

Why is it Germany has a successful solar program where the energy producers actually buy back the power at ten times market rate? They still make a profit and the country has solar panels everywhere.

Germany is not exactly famous for its sunshine like California is.

And you totally ignored what I said about the problems associated with getting raw materials into a nuclear plant; the mining, the by products, where the ore deposits are located and all the hassles associated with waste.


Nuclear power seems great when you first look at it, but the more you look the worse it gets.

Also building reactors will mostly benefit a select few contractors who have the ability to make them, and most of them are not U.S. companies. Solar and wind is relatively low tech and has lots of jobs for ordinary people.

Also, people complaining about how we don't drill for oil off the coast more don't understand geology. There are consequences for removing massive amounts of material from the Earth as things tend to settle.

The time is right for massive wind and solar projects and a new aqua duct to bring water from the North and/or East.
Ok, pass a law stating that your utility companies must buy excess power from homeowners. The problem is the grid is stupid and outdated and it's going to take a lot of money to fix it (which is on the utility companies to fix, not the government btw, it's in their own best interest).

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-10-04 15:25:11)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-04 15:26:04
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6928|Global Command

Red Forman wrote:

yall tried solar but it got shoved aside because of some squirrels.  and where are you going to get the money for this stuff?  fact is you guys did this to yourselves by allowing your state to become a liberal mess.  i hope they do not use my tax money to bail you guys out.
Wrong.

One project got shelved because the company was trying to use cheap land dumped by railroad companies that just happen to be in the middle of the Mojave Preserve. There are big projects planned and underway that don't get put down in the middle of an important part of the desert. There are vast areas that nobody really cares about.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s … 4073.story
2009-10-04 15:28:39
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5799

ATG wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

yall tried solar but it got shoved aside because of some squirrels.  and where are you going to get the money for this stuff?  fact is you guys did this to yourselves by allowing your state to become a liberal mess.  i hope they do not use my tax money to bail you guys out.
Wrong.

One project got shelved because the company was trying to use cheap land dumped by railroad companies that just happen to be in the middle of the Mojave Preserve. There are big projects planned and underway that don't get put down in the middle of an important part of the desert. There are vast areas that nobody really cares about.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s … 4073.story
no...i am not WRONG.

"A solar farm in Victorville is being held up because of an [endangered] squirrel. I love squirrels. They have never seen squirrels, but they are worried that if squirrels come, then they need to set extra property aside," said Arnold Schwarzenegger during a press conference at OptiSolar's new solar panel manufacturing plant in Sacramento. "It's one of the unfortunate things that environmental regulations are holding up environmental progress."

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ … ated-5198/

you say one.  i say many in a series.

that is just one example.  you think that is an isolated incident?

Last edited by Red Forman (2009-10-04 15:29:56)

2009-10-04 15:31:44
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5757|London, England
ATG, your responses are showing that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution for your state.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-04 15:32:51
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6928|Global Command
I think that Victorville is no place to build a array of panels. It is surrounded on all sides by PEOPLE. It is about 30 minutes from my house and I know it very well.


There has to be balance between companies that don't give a rip and crazy people that are too zealous.
2009-10-04 15:34:58
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5799

ATG wrote:

I think that Victorville is no place to build a array of panels. It is surrounded on all sides by PEOPLE. It is about 30 minutes from my house and I know it very well.
So.........  NIMBY?
2009-10-04 15:38:58
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7051|USA

ATG wrote:

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Hah! I was just about to post the same thing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oc … state-debt

So will we get all the Bush-lovers saying this is all Obama's fault? Probably.
Nope, this is the end result of liberal ideology in practice.
reaganomics blow.

there seems to be no good answer.
Really? I don't recall the states collapsing under Reaganomics
2009-10-04 15:53:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5757|London, England

lowing wrote:

Really? I don't recall the states collapsing under Reaganomics
Considering it's just bastardized Keynesian theory there is plenty wrong with it.

Trickle down itself works. You cut taxes and people spend more on consumer products which fuels business growth. The problem is that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending dramatically. He dumped so much money into defense it's not even funny. At what cost? We're still paying for planes built in the 80s. Reagan is who gave license for all succeeding governments to deficit spend and now we're going to pay the price of it. All that money Reagan dumped on the military would've been much better spent at the DOT or the DOE but no, he wasted it on crap like upgrading the USS Iowa and turning it from a WWII battleship into missile platform that is now scrapped. Yay.

Don't revere Reagan and surely don't revere Reaganomics. He was as fiscally liberal and confused as they come.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-10-04 15:57:04
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6948|San Diego, CA, USA
I'm selling my house in preparation the state going bankrupt...I don't want them to tax me to death with more Property Tax "assessments". 

$1,500 here...$2,000 there...it fucking adds up.

Also still have a check from the IOU from summer...been trying to get that thing cashed.


Seriously looking to move to the Country of Texas.
2009-10-04 15:59:32
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6897

Harmor wrote:

I'm selling my house in preparation the state going bankrupt...I don't want them to tax me to death with more Property Tax "assessments". 

$1,500 here...$2,000 there...it fucking adds up.

Also still have a check from the IOU from summer...been trying to get that thing cashed.


Seriously looking to move to the Country of Texas.
have fun immigrating. but seriously, it has been awhile since i lived there - did Prop 13 get repealed?
2009-10-04 16:03:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7051|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Really? I don't recall the states collapsing under Reaganomics
Considering it's just bastardized Keynesian theory there is plenty wrong with it.

Trickle down itself works. You cut taxes and people spend more on consumer products which fuels business growth. The problem is that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending dramatically. He dumped so much money into defense it's not even funny. At what cost? We're still paying for planes built in the 80s. Reagan is who gave license for all succeeding governments to deficit spend and now we're going to pay the price of it. All that money Reagan dumped on the military would've been much better spent at the DOT or the DOE but no, he wasted it on crap like upgrading the USS Iowa and turning it from a WWII battleship into missile platform that is now scrapped. Yay.

Don't revere Reagan and surely don't revere Reaganomics. He was as fiscally liberal and confused as they come.
Reaganomics worked, period. reagan's defense spending forced the collapse of our then arch enemy communist USSR. As it turned out their demise was probably the worst thing that could have happens since after their collapse the US stands alone as the world baby sitter, and it is costing us.
2009-10-04 16:15:58
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6928|Global Command

Red Forman wrote:

ATG wrote:

I think that Victorville is no place to build a array of panels. It is surrounded on all sides by PEOPLE. It is about 30 minutes from my house and I know it very well.
So.........  NIMBY?
Not in anybodies back yard.  A new road from I-15 could be built 30 miles into the desert and it would be in total isolation. They need to pick an area that has zero water and hence, no pesky wildlife.

This really isn't that complicated. The area the marines want to confiscate is the same sort of deal; right in the middle of a recreation area. People are just dumb; they take what seems to be the path of least resistance only to find out they are pissing in somebodies pool.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Really? I don't recall the states collapsing under Reaganomics
Considering it's just bastardized Keynesian theory there is plenty wrong with it.

Trickle down itself works. You cut taxes and people spend more on consumer products which fuels business growth. The problem is that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending dramatically. He dumped so much money into defense it's not even funny. At what cost? We're still paying for planes built in the 80s. Reagan is who gave license for all succeeding governments to deficit spend and now we're going to pay the price of it. All that money Reagan dumped on the military would've been much better spent at the DOT or the DOE but no, he wasted it on crap like upgrading the USS Iowa and turning it from a WWII battleship into missile platform that is now scrapped. Yay.

Don't revere Reagan and surely don't revere Reaganomics. He was as fiscally liberal and confused as they come.
Reaganomics worked, period. reagan's defense spending forced the collapse of our then arch enemy communist USSR. As it turned out their demise was probably the worst thing that could have happens since after their collapse the US stands alone as the world baby sitter, and it is costing us.
So, either way, fail.
2009-10-04 16:17:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7051|USA

ATG wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

ATG wrote:

I think that Victorville is no place to build a array of panels. It is surrounded on all sides by PEOPLE. It is about 30 minutes from my house and I know it very well.
So.........  NIMBY?
Not in anybodies back yard.  A new road from I-15 could be built 30 miles into the desert and it would be in total isolation. They need to pick an area that has zero water and hence, no pesky wildlife.

This really isn't that complicated. The area the marines want to confiscate is the same sort of deal; right in the middle of a recreation area. People are just dumb; they take what seems to be the path of least resistance only to find out they are pissing in somebodies pool.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Considering it's just bastardized Keynesian theory there is plenty wrong with it.

Trickle down itself works. You cut taxes and people spend more on consumer products which fuels business growth. The problem is that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending dramatically. He dumped so much money into defense it's not even funny. At what cost? We're still paying for planes built in the 80s. Reagan is who gave license for all succeeding governments to deficit spend and now we're going to pay the price of it. All that money Reagan dumped on the military would've been much better spent at the DOT or the DOE but no, he wasted it on crap like upgrading the USS Iowa and turning it from a WWII battleship into missile platform that is now scrapped. Yay.

Don't revere Reagan and surely don't revere Reaganomics. He was as fiscally liberal and confused as they come.
Reaganomics worked, period. reagan's defense spending forced the collapse of our then arch enemy communist USSR. As it turned out their demise was probably the worst thing that could have happens since after their collapse the US stands alone as the world baby sitter, and it is costing us.
So, either way, fail.
Nope, Reaganomics for the win, forcing the collapse of the USSR fail
2009-10-04 16:19:43
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7031|949

Except that Reagan didn't do anything for the USSR to collapse.  You can keep thinking that though if you want.  Just know it isn't correct.  But I'll stop derailing this thread.
2009-10-04 16:20:17
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6955
lol @ lowings advocacy for rampant government expenditure under Reagan. The topsy turvy world of Professor Paradox...

PS The USSR collapsed the USSR, not the USA. /newsflash

Oh and on a related note, thanks Ronnie:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/August_1985_Muja.jpg/776px-August_1985_Muja.jpg

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-04 16:25:24)

2009-10-04 16:21:54
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5985

Harmor wrote:

I'm selling my house in preparation the state going bankrupt...I don't want them to tax me to death with more Property Tax "assessments". 

$1,500 here...$2,000 there...it fucking adds up.

Also still have a check from the IOU from summer...been trying to get that thing cashed.


Seriously looking to move to the Country of Texas.
pff Those aren't property taxes.
2009-10-04 16:27:44
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6867
Reagan was a dick.

Last edited by Doctor Strangelove (2009-10-04 16:27:54)

2009-10-04 17:31:24
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6948|San Diego, CA, USA

Macbeth wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I'm selling my house in preparation the state going bankrupt...I don't want them to tax me to death with more Property Tax "assessments". 

$1,500 here...$2,000 there...it fucking adds up.

Also still have a check from the IOU from summer...been trying to get that thing cashed.


Seriously looking to move to the Country of Texas.
pff Those aren't property taxes.
No, an assessment is in addition to your normal property tax. 

For example: $5,200 / year + they do an "additional 'one-time' assement" for $2,000 for "schools" or "roads" or whatever.

That's how they are getting around Prop 13.

For those who don't know what Prop 13 is its a law passed by the voters that limited raising of property taxes by a maximum of 3% per year.  However, if you refinance or buy a home your property taxes will get reassessed.  This protected, typically older homeowners, who would have their property taxes increase by 25% year-over-year because of the prices of homes.


Businesses are leaving in droves.  Its like every other day you hear a company leave because its too expensive to do business in California.  The regulations are getting ridiculous.
2009-10-04 17:57:52
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5757|London, England

lowing wrote:

Reaganomics worked, period. reagan's defense spending forced the collapse of our then arch enemy communist USSR. As it turned out their demise was probably the worst thing that could have happens since after their collapse the US stands alone as the world baby sitter, and it is costing us.
You ate up the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The USSR was going to collapse anyway. Money spent on a military is money that is wasted. You might as well take that money, dump it in a pit and burn it. If you honestly think the Republican mantra of 'small government, small government' honestly includes a bloated defense budget you truly are an idiot. There is defense, as in enough of a force to defend our shores, and then there is we can conquer any European nation inside of two weeks big which is where we currently are. It's not necessary.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard