Slashdot Mirror

Also, the "Reagan defense build-up" began with Carter. The last two Carter budgets instituted annual real Defense increases of at least 3% a year, which were continued in his notional 5 year Defense budget proposal. The Reagan budgets basically followed Carter's Defense spending plan. Look at this graph and you will see Reagan continued the buildup path initiated by Carter.

When do we ever hear the right-wing acknowledging that Carter reversed the defense spending decline that occurred under Nixon and Ford, and that Reagan was imply following his lead?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/middle-class-really-three-decade-slump

http://www.businessinsider.com/decline-of-theus-middle-class-2013-10

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2013/09/17/74363/latest-census-data-underscore-how-important-unions-are-for-the-middle-class/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/college-costs-median-income_n_3443806.html

http://www.aarp.org/research/ppi/security/impacts-of-rising-healthcare-costs-AARP-ppi-sec.html

I think quoting a single statistic without anything else to compare it to is disingenuous. More people surely are enrolling in college now than they were in my parents' generation. My parents, going to a state school, essentially carried no debt when they finished, and had good middle class jobs waiting for them. It was more likely in my parents' generation that one could be middle class all the way through to retirement without a college degree, as well.

The price of a college education has risen at a rate entirely inconsistent with median income. That's not just for Harvard or MIT - that's for all American college education.

Similarly, health costs have gone up without regard to income levels. Likewise real estate anywhere where jobs exist. Likewise daycare, or elder care. Pensions that were commonplace a generation ago are nearly extinct now, and vilified by a large segment of the population.

Sure, people can afford to have computers and DVD players and game consoles that didn't exist a generation ago, but the essentials of a middle-class life are getting more and more expensive relative to a middle-class income.

of the GOP's war on a functional government?

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/07/union_busting.html

What is sad is the GOP on the candidate and national level is still so inept and scared of being called racist they don't look good to beat the most blatantly corrupt president of post-WW2 America.

Barak Obama got more than half his 2008 campaign money from small donors, and, probably as a result, has kept more than three times the number of campaign promises as he's broken (and could have kept many more if, for example, Congress hadn't gone out of its way to defund the closing of Guantanimo.) Compare to .

No, it's clear that, when it comes to Democrats and Republicans, the Republicans are far more corrupt, and are more apt to sell out to corporate influence; at least Democrats take money from--and listen to--worker groups, environmentalists and scientists on occasion. Of course, that's sort of like saying that a black hole is denser than a neutron star; sure, it's technically an accurate statement, but I sure wouldn't want to try to live on either one.

I think we're finally almost on the same page. You really seem to understand what I mean by scaling. I agree that scaling a process up isn't everything : you have to improve the process as well. I was envisioning an environment where there are multiple competing firms, all doing some practical research, that are always trying to shave another penny off the costs of panels being produced. All would have immense factories, big enough to get the maximum benefit from mass production.

Exactly like the market for computer chips.

And, unlike some of the other industries I mentioned, the amount of regulation and red tape would be vastly reduced.

When multiple suppliers compete to produce equipment used on offshore wells or in oil refineries, they can't shave costs too much, or an industrial disaster will strike. They have to do all kinds of engineering to determine that the parts used will handle the harsh conditions.

I would say that most of what your looking for is already here. Maybe not quite to the scale your wanting but the solar industry in 2005 was a 11.2 billion dollar industry. Of the most profitable companies like Q-cells, and SunPower and Suntech Power have doubled their presence and capabilities since then. Q-cells made over 1.2 billion along in 2007. Nanosolar has all of it's production on back order 18 months out. People are using the tech where it reasonable fits in. They are using it for public image and because of state requirements and so on. It's out there quite strong, it just needs more work. I think I counted a total of 13 companies making over 1 million in sales in the PV solar industry last time I tried to track it down. About 5 of them are publicly traded companies which means there is more pressure to compete with traditional sources.

If the government subsidized it, I would want two things.

a. Elimination of oil and other hydrocarbon subsidies. I argue that burning hydrocarbons is NOT a positive externality, it is a negative one. Even if you don't slap on carbon taxes, you have to at least make the taxes for using oil the same as for any other corporate activity. Why should other industries have to subsidize big oil? (because when you give, say, Exxon, a tax break, the missing government revenue has to come from other corporations. Like Walmart or Cisco)
b. The government could pay, with low interest loans, for the capital costs for the factories needed to mass produce solar cells. Firms that took the subsidies would still have to compete on price on the open market for their product, and would have to pay the operating + depreciation costs (essentially the marginal cost for production). This would encourage them to produce solar cells that are economically feasible.

You have to understand something. The subsidies given to oil don't even match the taxes paid by them. What subsidies do is get the oil companies to do something we want by covering part of the costs so it makes it profitable for them. If we didn't have the subsidies, the oil companies simple wouldn't invest in the areas our government thinks it should, it wouldn't drill in a certain place or abandon a non-profitable well that make costs jobs or something in an area. Currently, the oil subsidies account for around 33 billion dollars over the next 5 years. That would average around 6.6 billion a year. A senate report claims that the total amount of oil subsidies from the last 32 years equals 152 billion dollars. What is surprising about this is that it's all emotional alarm when you consider that American oil companies paid a

The people who should be paying more taxes are the upper class rich. In President Bush's world, the "really rich" have an easier time cheating on taxes without fear of punishment. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp? c=klLWJcP7H&b=138068 See this article. The "average" taxpayer pays way more than he/she should.

"What exactly did he lie about with WMDs? Iraq? Deficit, or Wiretapping?

WMDS? Well, first off, the CIA confirmed the WMDs didn't exist, then backed down from squaking loudly about it because of political pressure from Bush. Same with the aluminium tubes. Unlike in the US, the rest of the world got to see the interviews on TV with the inspectors debunking the tubes the day BEFORE Powell went to the UN and knowingly lied through his teeth.

Iraq? That one is easy. There was no reason to invade Iraq. Period. First, it was supposed to be Bin Laden. Then it was WMDs. Then it was "Democracy and peace". It was ALWAYS about oil. That "Those who aren't with us are against us" was the biggest lie going, slandering countries that didn't have their heads up Bush's arses. And the "quick war - 6 months tops - minimum casualties" is really working well - if you don't know how to count.

The deficit? Lets look at the campaign promises:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp? c=klLWJcP7H&b=137673

"To restore confidence in government, [George W. Bush] will...attack pork-barrel spending."

"As President, Governor Bush will...pay the debt down to a historically low level."

Wiretapping? Have you been hiding under a rock this last month over the conflicting stories he's pushed about the true extent of the wiretaps? Or are you afraid that if you write about it, there'll be a knock at your door?

7. Under the equivalent of the US PATRIOT Act's National Security Letter, the western "democracies" allow their equivalent of Total Information Awareness to gather *all* of the above information from all customers in order to search for patterns.

If you've been paying attention, you can bet #7 is happening in the US with some subset of data available from commercial entities.

It is probably already happening, even if unlawfully.

Voting on renewing/fortifying the Patriot Act should take place by the end of the week. (See http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site )

GENOCIDE -- DARFUR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT STRIPPED FROM BILL:

Last month, both the House and Senate unanimously passed amendments to the war-time supplemental bill that called on the Bush administration to ratchet up its diplomatic efforts to help end the crisis in Darfur. Yet today, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the House is expected to pass the supplemental bill, and surprise, surprise, those Darfur provisions won't be included. What happened? After pressure from the White House (including a letter from administration officials to House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis), the Darfur Accountability provisions were stripped from the bill.

Your stanse wreaks of a of prejudice and hatred, invoking the spirit of anti-Christianity.

You saying you're not an elitist is like Kerry saying he's been consistent.

You see, this statement:
If your best information indicated that a enemy has WMD...
Is just not true.
The POTUS used tailored information, not the best information. He only wanted to hear that they had WMD so that is the only information that made its way to his tiny little redneck wanna-be brain.
There were many in the CIA and other agencies (like the WEAPONS INSPECTORS, that were there)that informed him that there were no WMDs.
This may have not been a hard fact at the time, but W didn't even give them the chance before he launched his attack.
We know the facts now, and ..your best information... was just plian wrong.
Face it, we were lied to, so the POTUS could make his buddies at Halliburton even filthier in richness.

Regarding this:
I think he's been at best a mediocre president
and
Bush may promise things you don't like or want but he at least attempts to keep them and stick to them baring new information.

Please read these: here

Tell me, there is new information coming in all the time and this guy has stuck to his guns, even though that path has been wrong all along. [not enough troops, and the ones that were there weren't properly equipped, and they still arent] Where has it gotten us? 1100+ Americans dead, 7000+ wounded, hundreds of tons of missing explosives that he was warned about and decided not to guard, 10s of thousands ot innocent Iraqis dead, massive job losses, health care increases, poverty stricken increases, environmental failures.. the list goes on.
Here are some more

How can you say he is mediocre? There has never been a more pathetic display of what to do as POTUS in the entire history of there being a POTUS.
You are severely deluding yourself.
As far as Kerry is concerned, I guarantee he has a better grasp of things than W does. My dog has a better grasp than W. Kerry is intelligent and brave and has led men into real combat. Can W claim any of this? Can Cheney? Oh, they could, but like usual, they would be lying.

How can you claim empty promises when he hasn't had a chance to excute?
I am disgusted by the belief that W has been anything but a complete failure as POTUS, just like everything else in his life. He was handed a great job and he flushed it and everything surrounding it right down the sh1tter. Even when the entire world was for the USA after 9/11, he has managed to squander any good feeling towards us throughout the entire planet.
The republican and conservative world needs to face reality and give up on their Unholy Messiah.

Are you saying that flip-flopping is a bad thing?

At least when we talk to George W Bush, we know where he stands, and we know he'll do his level best to keep his promises.

I can't even tell what John Kerry is promising, it seems to change every other day.

Who's the flip-flopper?

and F (John F Kerry) is for FLIP FLOP .

The Bush MO is to attack his opponant for his weakness (attacking both Kerry and McCain over Vietnam...)

Calling Kerry a Flip Flopper is another example of this.

read this site, it has 30 eaxamples of MAJOR flip flops from bush and his administration.

If you think that changing ones position is a bad thing, I suggest you rethink (yes I am assuming you support him) supporting GWB.

The site also fails to list my personal favorite:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" - George W. Bush

Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

And no I'm not interested in 12 minutes. Just 7.

Maybe I'll put up a site showing Bush's speech from last Thursday where he talks about how its our moral duty to take care of Seniors. Then we will have a nice Mirrored image of his face where when you click it, it shows his massive 17% increase in Medicare. That or flash clip playing audio of Bush saying both "I'm a war President" and "I'm a peace President" over and over.

Man this new /. Political Forum is awesome!!!