Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Plan To Power Every US Home With Renewables By 2027 Is Achievable
Lucas123 writes: As part of her campaign pledge, Hillary Clinton has said she would make it a priority in her first term to increase the number of solar panels by 500M and U.S. installed solar capacity from 21 gigawatts (GW) today to 140GW by the end of 2020. Her plan, is to increase solar, wind and other renewables so that they'd provide 33% of America's electricity by 2027, enough to power every home. While the plan may sound overly ambitious, experts say, it's not. Today, renewables provide about 15% of America's power. Shayle Kann, senior vice president at GTM Research, said the Clinton's renewable energy goal is doable, but with caveats. In order to achieve the goal, current programs, such as federal tax breaks for solar installations (set to expire next year), must continue and future initiatives, such as Obama's Clean Power Plan that will begin in 2018, must not be curtailed. Considering that if elected, Clinton wouldn't take office until 2017, the her campaign goals could be more bravado than reality. Clinton, however, is not alone. While most candidates have yet to announce their clean energy plans, Clinton's Democratic contender, Martin O'Malley, also came out with strong support for the end of fossil fuel use and a full clean energy economy by 2050, and creating a national goal of doubling energy efficiency within 15 years.
Great Scott!!!!!!!
To put 21 gigawatts in perspective, that's approximately 17 trips through time.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
If Hillarreah! were to tell me it's raining at night, I'd have to go outside to confirm it.
And I'd expect it to be sunny without a cloud in the sky.
headline says:
Clinton Plan To Power Every US Home With Renewables By 2027 Is Achievable
but the summary says
Her plan, is to increase solar, wind and other renewables so that they'd provide 33% of America's electricity by 2027, enough to power every home.
what this means is that the amount of renewable generation would equal residential use, not that each house would be 100% renewable.
In CA Southern California Edison is currently 22% renewable, and they have plans to go to 27%. This doesn't include home generation like rooftop solar panels, which should count for the 33% goal.
Please, enough with your sexist, cis-male, privileged bullshit. Everyone knows that Clinton has always run a clean, transparent operation wherever she goes and isn't one to blame significant swaths of the country for her failures. Next thing you'll be telling us she has a foundation that acts as a pay-for-play slush fund that enables assholes from around the world to get access to her and Bill.
This was addressed in both the summary and comments of the last Slashdot posting on this topic:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/15/07/27/1231216/clinton-promises-500-million-new-solar-panels
Her plan would cost roughly $60 billion over 10 years, and she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.
funner question: is this before or after the FEMA camps are activated
Would you prefer "naturally replenishing on a scale that is non-depletable in any practical sense at the present time"? It takes a little longer to say, but maybe it would be more to your liking?
The US will probably reach that goal by 2027 without Clinton interventions based purely on economics of cheap solar. Of course had she, like other politicians, acted when it was actually important, the few hundred billions of dollars required for this transition would have supported American manufacturing. Instead these dollars will be funding development of the Chinese economy via their increasingly global renewable energy operations.
Heck, she could have asked around for predictions of renewable adoption so she could announce a "plan" to get us to 33%, knowing in advance that it will happen on its own. That way if she wins, she can look like a success without having to do anything. Not the worst idea ever.
I agree. We should also let the market decide if the military and the police are worth paying for. Instead of forcing taxes to the home owners, every citizen should pay whatever they think military and police are worth. What could possibly go wrong?
"naturally replenishing on a scale that is non-depletable in any practical sense at the present time"
I like that definition. Registering.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
Semantics.
Everybody knows that "renewable energy" means "not being drawn from a reservoir on Earth". That means that if it's mined or pumped out of the ground, it's not renewable. For the purpose of this analysis, the Sun is considered to be outside the system. Thus solar is direct renewable energy. Wind and hydro come from current solar in put. You could argue that coal and oil are from solar in put too; but the mechanism that stored energy in them was eons ago and not under our control. Thus, they are "non renewable".
The only people that don't understand this are idiots, politicians with an axe to grind, or pedants. OK... some of those people do understand it, and are just being difficult.
Is this just electricity or heating oil and natural gas as well? Is the government going to pay me to replace my furnace, water heater, clothes dryer, and oven that are only a couple years old with electric models, while paying for an upgraded service feed to my house to handle all the extra amps required?
Oh right, those are "little people" problems.
Solar is currently the most expensive renewable by far. I know the dream is to power everything in your house with solar panels on the roof, but the technology just isn't there yet (at least without tremendous expense).
The latest complete electrical production stats (2013) put renewables at 12.8%. 6.6% of that is hydro, 4.1% is wind, 1% is burning wood (yes it's a renewable), 0.5% is "other biomass" - mostly natural gas captured from landfills, 0.4% is geothermal, and only 0.22% is solar (thermal and photovoltaic). Solar isn't last because of some grand conspiracy. It's last because it's the most expensive.
Why would you want to put the most expensive technology on the fast track for widescale adoption? Because it taps into the wishes and dreams of those who don't know better? The whole point of being an elected official is that your sole job is to learn this stuff so you can make better decisions about it than the voters who elected you who don't have the time (or sometimes the capability) to learn this stuff. A more well-reasoned approach would be to encourage wider adoption of wind (hydro is pretty much tapped out in the U.S., and wind is just a hair's breadth more expensive than coal), while continuing subsidies into solar R&D. Encouraging wide-scale adoption of PV solar at current levels of technology and cost is wasteful and foolish when better alternatives exist.
There is no such thing as "renewable" energy. It's only a goddamn law of thermodynamics.
Wow. Second post in the thread and it's already the hands-down winner of the "Pendantic Dipshit" award.
How the hell much is this going to cost?
Likely a crapload more than the so called "expert" who is really from from a solar/wind industry media outlet tells us it will.
It's always about the money, and where it can be funneled. State paid out $6 billion without anything even close to adequate contracts just while she was Secretary of State. Think of the opportunities for redirection with a massive government led redo of the electrical grid.. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Or maybe due to negative externalities that weren't properly internalized into the price of energy, energy prices have been artificially low all along, encouraging people to live energy-intensive lifestyles, and now all of a sudden they have to pay the piper.
Nah, that couldn't possibly be true at all.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
oh, fire trucks too!
The economics don't work and the physics don't work. Solar can't provide power at night. Wind can't produce when there's no wind. That's a big problem. Plus the constant up/down status changes of the power sources will put a huge strain on our grid. We need *reliable* power.
If the solar panels that are opined are to be installed are on the consumers' houses, how will the power distribution grid need to be changed?
If solar panels are in the desert somewhere, will a new distribution system need to be built (along what right of way?) to carry the electricity from the desert to the consumers?
In other words, don't just look at the power generation source, also look at getting that generated power to the consumer.
It was the insurance company that changed your doctor or your plan, not the ACA.
Yes... because of ACA...
Pray tell, which of the GOP pscyopaths I mean hopefuls are preferable to Queen Hillary?
Make no mistake.
I'm not voting for her either, at least in the primary.
Sanders is my guy, or barring him Biden (who at least comes about his liberalism honestly).
But if the choice is between a socially liberal fiscally conservative political chameleon like Hillary, and a socially archaic fiscally 'conservative' screw the poor to feed the rich Republican, I'm voting for Hillary.
"naturally replenishing on a scale that is non-depletable in any practical sense at the present time"?
But not counting hydro, even though it totally overwhelms all the other renewables, because it's Evil and Corporate.
Now, out of that small handful of people, which one cares about us exactly?
The only person who has a remote chance of caring about us is Trump.
Wait, wait, don't bring out the pitch forks... yea, I know he is a walking ego trip, yes he is a arrogant SOB...
I am well aware of that... but he also has nothing to gain by screwing us at this point. He is now old, very wealthy, and has nothing else to do but take the country in a new direction. He also isn't owned by lobbyists or 30 years of political connections the way Bush and Clinton are.
If Bush or Clinton are elected, exactly nothing will change. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.
At least Trump will kick over the table and say, "new direction".
Will it turn out well? Hard to say, we won't really know without trying, but at some point we either try something new, or accept the current situation forever.
She was basically expected to fail. For various political reasons within the DNC she needed to be given the presumption of a chance but there was an understanding from the start that she'd not go anywhere.
Sort of like the republicans running John McCain or something... the know he's not going to win. They might even nominate him... but if they do... they know he's not going anywhere.
Hillary is the same thing and so is Bernie or Trump. the political forces that know anything know that these people are the opening circus attraction.
Behind Hillary there are a lot of people in the Dem ranks that can stand up and be more credible than her. And they will especially since Hillary appears to be self destructing faster than anything believed possible. This email thing is getting increasingly serious. I doubt she's going to jail over it but... it is looking like something nasty could come out of it. The sweater is getting unraveled.
On the other political side you have Trump... who also will not be president. Its not going to happen. Even if he got the nomination and he won't... but even if he did... he'd still lose.
So who cares what these people say they would do. I might as well stand up and say what I would do if I were president. Or anyone else on slashdot... Stand up and tell us what you'd do if you were president.
Whatever you said matters about as much as Hillary's various schemes to get enough votes to get her party's nomination.
I will say this... IF Hillary got nominated... she might win. She'd have a D after her name and that is a very powerful thing in an election. But... I don't think she's going to get nominated.
She's kind of a female Al Gore in a lot of ways. Neither Gore nor her wants to associate with Bill Clinton but neither of them would even be considered for high office without that association. I don't know why they distance themselves from Bill. If I were either of them I'd walk around on stage as Bill Clinton gave me piggybacks. As much as possible, I'd try to make people think they were voting for Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton could actually win again... I mean... legality and term limits aside... people like him. No one likes Hillary. Even her supporters don't like her. They feel comfortable with her maybe or they think her politics are right or whatever. But they don't like her. Who wants to have a beer with Hillary? or a glass of wine or anything? No one likes her. Bill is funny. He's got stories. He's charming. You'd have a good time and he projects that in his politics and personality.
Hillary projects... Agnes from accounting... The woman in the office that does something boring and repetitive that no one cares about... she goes home every day at 5pm and people assume she has a lot of cats because of the pictures of cats all over her cubicle...
I mean seriously... imagine if Hillary were not a politican but just some person. Would you want to know her or spend any time with her?
Exactly. I mean... I'd rather spend time with Trump then her... and Trump is insane. But Trump is at least amusing. I'd likely deck him every so often... and doubtless he'd call the cops on me because I assume he's a whiny bitch on the subject. But... people you want to spend time with versus not is relevant in politics. Likability.
And that's a problem for old Hill. She isn't getting the nomination. I don't see it. And if she does... she's one of the weaker presidential candidates the dems could field.
I'd actually fear Bernie more in this election if I were the republicans more than Hillary. I mean... bernie is a frizzy haired crack pot. But he's at least sincere. He actually believes the shit that comes out of his mouth. Hillary doesn't believe anything. Those are just animal sounds she makes to lull the peasants. Everything is focus groups, talking points, lobbying scripts... she licks her finger, holds it up to the wind, and that's her position.
And I think THAT perception is going to be very hard for her to overcome.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Would you prefer "naturally replenishing on a scale that is non-depletable in any practical sense at the present time"? It takes a little longer to say, but maybe it would be more to your liking?
OK.... So natural gas fits that definition as we have more reserves of that than we can conceivably use within your grand children's life times....
Coal is also 'naturally replenishing on a scale that is non-depletable in any practical sense at the present time'.
Who knew we were already so green?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Or maybe because hydro is mature and already close to peak, so giving it incentives would not help the overall energy picture? The point of most of the "renewable energy bills" is to drive development and deployment of a large range of renewables. If solar panels become much cheaper/better (such that "the market" will handle it) then I'd expect solar panel subsidies to dry up. To my uninformed view, it looks like wind may be approaching that level?
Pedantic!
dammit.
In theory, no. In practice, yes, if it is financed with unbounded, unmonitored, unaccounted money.
How the hell much is this going to cost?
Every cent you have in one way or the other..... Your electric rates will go up. Everybody's rates will go up. The poor won't be able to pay so the next campaign promise is to "help" the poor pay their electric bills. This will drive up your taxes which will drive more folks onto "assistance" with their electric bills... And the tax and spend cycle takes over...
You think I'm kidding? It's what is happening to health care now....
Let me be clear, the True West alone will produce that much clean energy in WA OR ID NV CA UT.
We're not the problem. We grow our economies and our population while emitting fewer GHG emissions.
It's the rest of America that's the problem.
And 2027 is far too late for you to get your act together.
Climate Change is Now.
Something I said back in 2008. Which is when we needed to end grandfather exemptions for old inefficient fossil fuel plants.
We took action in the True West.
You didn't. Even the other states who did only stopped emissions growth, while we reduced ours and grew our economy ten times faster than you did.
Actions. Now.
Not words.
Not then. Now.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I agree. I really wish they would bring back the tax rates under Reagan. Wouldn't that be great?
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
depends, is it jet fuel like that used by Alaskan Airlines based on biofeuls, or traditional jet fuel?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
renewables don't cost more, fossil fuels are just heavily subsidized - as in they should cost more right now.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Clinton Plan To Power Every US Home With Renewables By 2027 Is Achievable
Many things are achievable but still not worth doing:
Dude 1: "So I got wasted, hooked up with that skanky 60-year old fat chick from the bar, lost my car keys and walked home in the rain, slipped and fell in a pile of dogshit."
Dude 2: "That's...achievable!"
Anyway, the kind of people who work for a living and pay taxes might ask, "so how much is this going to cost me?"
Well it might not be as bad as Obama's plan which, in his own words, would cause electricity prices to "necessarily skyrocket."
Though if we emulate Denmark or Germany then our electric bills will be about 2.5x what they are now. Over at Watts Up With That, Willis Eschenbach plots renewable energy adoption of nations vs. their respective consumer electric price. As he explains, he derives the plot from two graphs first presented together here by Paul Homewood.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Wrong. Wind and solar are both cheaper. Pay attention. It's 2015, not 1975.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Isn't that called voting and the reason why the fire departments nearest my house keep closing?
Sometimes because of ACA, though I've heard rumors that in the decades before the ACA insurance companies sometimes changed their policy offerings without Obama causing it! Seems unlikely I know...
But yeah, the ACA did change a lot of "good if you never needed them" plans. You would think that the free market would have weeded out either the shysters who offered those plans or the gullible marks who bought them, but that never seems to happen in practice.
The ACA doesn't kill insurance plans, insurance companies kill insurance plans. (Yeah, this version is just as nonsensical).
You're the first I've seen to use that particular reasoning.
World peace is also achievable, but like Clinton's "plan", it's just not going to happen.
Maybe Hillary could conduct a pilot project in her own home. Throw a few panels on the roof. It might even generate enough to power an email server.
Umm...it appears that the email server has been disconnected. Well, never mind. It's the thought that counts :-)
ACA caused doctors to change what plans they accept due to the amount insurance companies pay out based on changed due to ACA.
For example, my wife accepts Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas, but only for PPO plans outside of the exchanges. If you're on the cheap HMO plan on the federal exchange your insurance doesn't work for her.
A number of her patients used to be covered, until their old plans were discontinued and they were moved to new plans that she wasn't on. These changes were directly caused by ACA.
The ACA was well intentioned, but executed poorly.
Clinton also announced a new initiative to replace the warplanes of the American air force with modern and environmentally sound flying pigs. "It is an achievable goal," she is quoted as saying. Whether or nor this meant it was a desirable one to achieve was not addressed by the candidate.
If Bush or Clinton are elected, exactly nothing will change.
Last time we had a Clinton, we shrunk the deficit down to zero and grew the middle class and the economy.
Last time we had a Bush, we exploded the deficit, started multiple wars that we couldn't end, and crippled the economy.
While I too wish that the parties and candidates were a bit more different, I'm not sure you can call them identical...
Yes...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe...
Ha, even our grocery clerks make $15/hour and will retire millionaires while those outside the True West will never retire because they can't afford to.
And they'll live well in retirement, as our new 21st Century power is about 1/10th the cost of your energy. Adapt.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Hydro is not anywhere near peak. Unless you mean "we can't build any more dams because environmental concerns".
California is waking up to the realization that All those regulations mean squat when there is a real drought, and the only thing saving the mini fish are the dams we built that they said was killing them off. Maybe now, we can build some more dams
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the government^WRomans ever done for us?
If we decide that the market should choose the best solution for energy, wouldn't it be a "slippery slope" fallacy to automatically decide that the market should also choose the best solution for national defense and law enforcement?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
US democracy is a joke. There is the same number of Representatives in the House since 1911, where the US population was a mere ~90 millions.
The ACA was well intentioned
No it wasn't. IT was designed from the beginning to snooker the American people into a broken "insurance" scam designed to break the medical/insurance industry. It was designed to fail, so that Americans would jump into single payer, crap healthcare.
You can keep your plan (Lie)
It isn't a tax (Lie)
You can keep your doctor(Lie)
It will cost less(Lie)
You'll have better coverage (Lie)
And I am sure supporters will provide anecdotal evidence that some of these claims were true for them. Plenty of people lost their doctors, plans and spend more for less insurance. OH, and Obama lied about not increasing taxes on those making $250k or less. BUT who cares, Cecil the lion is dead!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Police and military aren't part of the market system since they're functions of the government. Energy is part of the market system, you have choices. For now.
There is no such thing as "renewable" energy. It's only a goddamn law of thermodynamics.
Wow. Second post in the thread and it's already the hands-down winner of the "Pendantic Dipshit" award.
Do I get the Pedantic and Off-Topic Dipshit award for pointing out that there's no such thing as inorganic produce? :)
Fast enough that there is no chance of it running out.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If that were the only reason, then Europe should off the petrol habit entirely.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We absolutely did NOT shrink the deficit to zero. In 1998 Clinton and Congress got the budget to BALANCE, once. That is they took in as much as they spent. That had absolutely no effect on the deficit other than that it didn't add to it. But under no accounting scheme did Clinton or anyone else in the 100 years get rid of the deficit.
BUT who cares, Cecil the lion is dead!
Yea, the outrage over that is amazing...
People are so stupid, I sometimes have little hope for humanity.
If you want to care about something, how about the thousands of miles of coral reef that China is destroying to build islands in the South China Sea? That is FAR more damaging to the planet than a lion dying.
But no one cares, because they aren't being told to care, because people are idiots and sheep. Which I guess isn't new, but it is sad. :(
"change a lot of "good if you never needed them" plans"
You know, in the whole medical insurance debate, you are the person who quite literally pisses me off more than any other. You come in so smugly stating how it doesn't matter that those types of plans were eliminated and forced to cover things how you think they should. You only look at your view of insurance, and don't consider that there's a very real and very valid alternative, but your head is so far up your own orifice that you don't realize it and refuse to hear it.
Here's my method to insurance. It's for catastrophic emergency and only for that. For maintenance, rather than pay a middle man, I prefer to just deal with it myself by keeping a slush fund for it. As a result, I pay something like 1/3 of what most of my neighbours who use the "insurance will cover everything" insurance method. Now yes, if there were something catastrophic, that's where I would want insurance to cover it. But in the real world, something catastrophic is very unlikely to happen. So thus I buy insurance that only covers something catastrophic.
Why should health insurance be any different? I seriously think you have to be amongst the stupidest people alive to think "well, I'm going to need to go to the dentist twice this year, and I'm going to have my physical, well, lets go and give a middle man twice what it would actually cost to do those thing and then have them take care of the billing while they try to screw me out of as much as possible claiming that the check-up was too expensive and will only cover part of it". Logic says, you know you're going to have to do that stuff, so budget for it and cut out the middle man. But no, most people are so stupidly irresponsible that they can't manage that and somehow fool themselves into thinking that insurance covering it is somehow cheaper than paying for it directly.
And then the end of it is their ass hats like you, how look at my preferred method, scoff and what all isn't covered and then pass fucking laws to make it so my method is actually made illegal telling me how much better I have it now, even though you jacked my prices up by more than double for the exact same care I was getting before. FUCK YOU!!!!!!
You realize you are decrying anecdote while countering with generalization, right? I love watching a good political argument, but it is a little difficult to get into when you both arrive to the field of contest unarmed.
OMG facts!
The only person who has a remote chance of caring about us is Sanders.
Fixed. He may be a relative fringe candidate, but as the election approaches, so will become Trump.
We should also let the market decide if the military and the police are worth paying for.
There are a few people who believe that we don't need a government; that the free market can solve all problems up to and including national defense. These people are called anarcho-capitalists.
Other people believe that government should handle things for people that the people cannot handle for themselves, and military and police fall into the latter category. I am in this camp; I consider myself a minarchist.
Still other people believe that government should be really big and do lots of stuff; not just the core functions like military and police, but government should feed people, provide medical care for people, etc.
Your joke about making military and police optional is kind of funny, but actually conflating military and police with renewable energy policy is fuzzy thinking.
The big problem with anarcho-capitalism, IMHO, is the free rider problem. If 90% of the people make their voluntary contributions to the national defense, and 10% don't, it is not possible for the defense to allow attacks on the 10%. National defense is either effective for everyone or effective for nobody.
On the other hand, privatized fire departments actually work. Not only have they been tried, they actually are in current operation in the USA. It's simple: if you don't pay for fire protection, the fire department doesn't save your house; they watch it burn down (and make sure the fire doesn't spread to paid-up neighbors' homes). No free-rider problem.
So while I don't actually believe that privatized police and military would work, other things like power generation and fire departments could work. Then it becomes a political question of what the majority of people prefer. (I don't expect ever to see the government get as small as the imaginary minarchist model would propose; I'd be happy just to see it get smaller. Most people like public fire departments and would vote to keep them, and I'm not such a hard-core frothing-at-the-mouth minarchist that I have a real problem with this. Overall, public fire departments are working okay.)
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
And why would you choose renewable if they are more expensive than fossil fuels? You don't. That's why we need central planing to force stuff such as environment protection. There are various ways to achieve this however. One way is to tax fossil fuels, and then let "the market" decide which renewable is best.
The market is NOT the best solution for energy. The market will always produce too much energy from polluting sources.
And this was done by adding social security to the general fund which was nothing more than an accounting gimmick.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Sometimes because of ACA, though I've heard rumors that in the decades before the ACA insurance companies sometimes changed their policy offerings without Obama causing it! Seems unlikely I know...
But yeah, the ACA did change a lot of "good if you never needed them" plans. You would think that the free market would have weeded out either the shysters who offered those plans or the gullible marks who bought them, but that never seems to happen in practice.
The ACA doesn't kill insurance plans, insurance companies kill insurance plans. (Yeah, this version is just as nonsensical).
ACA does kill the plans by making them no longer affordable. When the president or his lobbyists can add new things and require them to be covered at 100%, a lot of cheaper plans that younger people would have wanted fall apart.
And regardless, Obama is the one that made the claim that insurance would be cheaper once everyone was on it. That hasn't worked out at all as lots of people predicted.
Archangel Michael is correct. This was not a well intentioned plan. It was a plan designed to crash the current health system while making it look to be the fault of the evil insurance companies.
Say what you will about Obama, he is very good at making himself look like the victim being picked on by mean bullies. Name one debate where he didn't use the phrase "common sense solution" and then criticize or make fun of everyone who didn't agree with him
Um, we don't have a state income tax in WA. Doubt it.
We already subsidize your fossil fuel tax exemptions and other tax giveaways to your Chinese overlords.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
If you're going to use punitive taxation to force the market to "decide" on something, that's not democracy. What next? I get taxed extra if I don't vote Democrat or don't belong to a labor union? If people don't like the system of government that we're supposed to have, the appropriate solution is to amend the constitution, not to grossly pervert the intentionally limited functions of the federal government to get around its intentional restrictions.
This has little to do with the topic du jour at this point. The real question is:
Who still wants to live in a free country?
Even a market free of market failures such as negative externalities?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Her plan would cost roughly $60 billion over 10 years, and she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.
LOL - Why doesn't she cut those tax breaks first? I guess saying that we will be paying for it by no longer funding two unfunded wars no longer works for the democrats. Now we are back to the evil oil and gas industry. Might as well as add another tax to cigarette companies. They poll even worse than big oil.
On the other hand, privatized fire departments actually work
No they don't. It's a rarely used service which is a lot more efficient if everyone is paying for it. It is not efficient at all to move the whole fire department over to a house just to watch it burn and make sure it doesn't spread to neighbors.
It's also a natural monopoly. It wouldn't be efficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town. It's much better to have a larger one with better equipment. And even then, it's better when nearby towns collaborate in the event of a large fire.
Just because they exists doesn't mean they work or are efficient.
The big problem with anarcho-capitalism, IMHO, is the free rider problem [wikipedia.org]. If 90% of the people make their voluntary contributions to the national defense, and 10% don't, it is not possible for the defense to allow attacks on the 10%. National defense is either effective for everyone or effective for nobody.
The exact same logic applies to power generation. Everyone suffers from pollution coming from fossil fuel power plants. Those getting cheap electricity from coal are free riding on those paying more for renewable. It also applies at the national level. The US/Canada/Australia are currently free riding on the rest of the world by emitting way more greenhouse gases per capita than the world average.
All the article does is project capacity growth rates by assuming same rate as now with continued subsidies, higher rate required to meet target, or reduced rate without subsidies. It does not address things like storage, grid balance, distribution, etc.
This is the basic finance sector assumption of linear growth grates of market shares, when the actual dynamics depend on the market share already achieved. In short, the article tells us nothing at all.
If you're going to use punitive taxation to force the market to "decide" on something, that's not democracy
Yes it is. Income tax, sales tax, gas tax are all punitive taxes voted democratically.
I would also argue that forcing pollution to others is no better than forcing taxes.
I know what the panels will cost (specious sourcing for that cost aside).
What I want to know is how much it's going to cost the rest of us.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Of course not, but such market doesn't exist.
Okay, stop tape.
Unless you can point to or create an objective set of criteria for those "negative externalities" and do so in a way that sets an objective price point for them? It's a nice way of saying that pollution sucks, but way too subjective to actually use fairly. I guarantee that if ever put into statute, it would fast become a club with which to punish political enemies and convenient scapegoats.
Besides, who decides what is "energy intensive"? I'm pretty sure the old folks who rely on motorized gear just to stay out of a nursing home, or a crippled kid who relies on power-hungry medical equipment just to stay alive would object to your assessment, no?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I'm afraid you're equating change with good.
Change is not the equivalent to good. Change is change. The only thing you know about change is that it's not "no change".
Trump is change. It's a big change. You get the possible benefits you've listed out. And you'll also get a raving lunatic on an ego trip. That's a marked change from the past 24-28 years.
But is it a good change? Because a big change can mean really good. And it can mean really bad. And since we're a little bad right now, really good would net us good, but really bad nets really, really bad.
Are the benefits of Trump's "big changes" worth the risk? That's for you to decide I guess.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Who cares if Trump is not a puppet, when he is being evil all by himself?
Please explain how ~30-80 cents/gallon** taxation becomes "subsidized".
**depending on state and local excise taxation.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"Will it turn out well? Hard to say, we won't really know without trying, but at some point we either try something new, or accept the current situation forever."
I have never set myself on fire but I really don't need to try it to see if it is a good idea.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Just wait until your car insurance has to cover gas, tires and oil changes.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The entire thread is about some hand-waving "priorities" she'll have as president.... Pointing out how disingenuous she's been on pretty much every other issues she's ever mentioned is NOT off topic.
He got modded by a Hillary supporter. But 'disingenuous' and 'hand-waving'? These are the qualities the voters reward. There is no need to single her out. We know these politicians are frauds (and clowns!) and we know who they serve, and yet we elect the same carny hucksters over and over for 30 years or more. So, what do you have against winning? It is not their fault for being successful. Are we supposed to shock the monkey when it does what it is told? That would produce some very strange results. And let's all be honest here, she's only evil to you because she is on the democrat ticket. Otherwise she and a holographic Reagan would be singing "Unforgettable" together on stage at the GOP convention.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
My lying doctor promised I would be able to play the piano after my surgery. It's been 2 months, and I am still as bad at piano as I have always been. Damned Obamacare!
"Last time we had a Clinton, we shrunk the deficit down to zero and grew the middle class and the economy."
We had an internet bubble, and Clinton failed to prevent the attack on the WTC... It happened right after Bush became the president but the planning had to happen during Clinton's term.
Actually who ever replaces Obama will probably have an easy term. Oil prices are low which drives the US economy. The US could actually start exporting oil which would lower our trade deficit. China's stock market is imploding which will drive investment to the US.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You can keep your plan if it's a legitimate insurance plan. Lots of shitty plans stopped being offered.
It isn't a tax, as in it's not a line-item on your tax bill. By your logic, Wal-Mart is a tax, because they get corporate subsidies for their welfare-requiring employees.
You can keep your doctor, if your insurance allows you to. Before the ACA there were those problems, too.
It does cost less, overall. The rate of healthcare cost increases is the lowest it's been in decades. It's not about you personally, it's the overall trend. Not to mention more people now qualify for insurance.
Overall? Most people have better coverage, and more people have coverage, period. If you lost coverage, it was only because you were profiting from the people who were paying for plans that didn't really offer any protection.
Oh, and don't forget that the Baby Boomers are aging, and are creating a huge load on the system... that's driving costs up for everyone. But I'm sure that's Obama's fault, too.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I have never set myself on fire but I really don't need to try it to see if it is a good idea.
That reply can be given to anything new... Cars, airplanes, computers, robots, etc.
It doesn't address anything...
Don't say gimmick, let's say borrowed.
Curious how a question of costs is somehow "offtopic"...
Guess I must've struck a few nerves.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The only person who has a remote chance of caring about us is Trump.
Wait, wait, don't bring out the pitch forks... yea, I know he is a walking ego trip, yes he is a arrogant SOB.. I am well aware of that... but he also has nothing to gain by screwing us at this point. .
That doesn't mean he cares about you, it just means he's responding to different incentives.
He is now old, very wealthy, and has nothing else to do but take the country in a new direction.
He also isn't owned by lobbyists or 30 years of political connections the way Bush and Clinton are.
If Bush or Clinton are elected, exactly nothing will change. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.
The fact he has different baggage doesn't he has no baggage. If anything I'd say he's more likely to have some massive skeletons stuffed in the closet of an unsavoury operator.
As for a new direction 'new' doesn't necessary mean better, I don't see how a guy batting to the looniest of the fringes is going to be a change for the better.
At least Trump will kick over the table and say, "new direction".
Will it turn out well? Hard to say, we won't really know without trying, but at some point we either try something new, or accept the current situation forever.
Just read this twitter exchange. It's not a policy position or anything like that but I think it's illustrative.
First, who in their right mind gets in an insult fight with a professional comedy writer?
Second, once they're in that fight who throws out insults like a 5 year old and acts like they're kicking ass?
Trump was obviously once competent enough at one thing to make billions, but at this point, in this context, it's pretty clear that he's spent so long surrounded with yes-men that he's completely out of touch with reality. The prospect of having him in power scares me more than Sarah Palin.
I stole this Sig
I'm not suggesting that Hillary subsidize hydro, just that environmentalists be honest about accounting for it as a renewable source. They always include it when they say "30% of Rurethenia's power comes from renewables." because it sounds so much more noble than "2% of the country's power comes from wind, 1% from solar and 27% from Bigfukken Dam."
In my sun-drenched community, a few wealthy Republican early adopters have rooftop solar installations that supply all their needs.
I'm curious about your methodology. Can you elaborate on how you determined their affiliation? Do you personally know all the people in your community with rooftop solar or did you determine their party affiliation in some other manner?
Can you also clarify whether you merely mean that they are registered to vote in republican primaries, or do you have solid evidence that they vote a strict republican hard line in all elections regardless of candidates or issues?
There are a scattering of houses with rooftop solar in some of the neighborhoods where I run (on foot for exercise, not for political office) but it would never have occurred to me to research the political party affiliation of the homeowners.
Here's one example: The cost of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley is more than $1,600 per person per year, or $6 billion to the region's economy, according to the researchers.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Besides, my doctor got arrested for defrauding companies, why shouldn't Obama get the credit for that?
Because it was probably an insurance company that investigated your doctor and discovered that, not the federal government...
The prospect of having him in power scares me more than Sarah Palin.
Now THAT scares me... that you'd rather have her than him.
She is an idiot who doesn't know anything about anything, at least Trump knows about business.
Yes, he is a walking ego trip, perhaps a blowhard and a PITA...
But he isn't stupid, he knows how to build things, and while he isn't my first choice, he is ahead of the other people running.
Have you stopped to consider that some of his comments of the past few months are actually quite carefully considered? He would not be getting anything close to the media attention without them, he is leading the republican polls, so clearly he is doing something right.
Why does everyone want to hire a lawyer or professional lifetime politician to be President, instead of a CEO?
Another example, Steve Jobs was a PITA to work for, he'd yell, scream, tell you were you a moron, yet he clearly knew something.
Some of the nicest people in the world would make for crappy leaders.
Paying for things like roads or fire protection is not punitive. Forcing people to purchase things that they would not otherwise purchase is punitive. The feds never would have been given the authority to tax if anyone thought that power would be abused this way. This isn't by consent of the governed. We're becoming subjects instead of citizens. Regardless of your political viewpoint, that's not a good thing.
I am not unarmed. I'm using the safe arms of Nerf Guns, since that seems to work with the people outraged by Cecil but don't care about things that really matter, like Hillary's Email Server.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Just wait until your car insurance has to cover gas, tires and oil changes.
Actually, just wait a little longer and your car insurance company won't cover you at all (only your self driving vehicle).
Then only the rich will be able to afford to drive, because all nearly all vehicles on the road will be rentals and the actuaries won't be able to justify covering a "loss-of-revenue" insurance claim from a vehicle collision w/o a massive premium cost for human piloted cars.
If you like to drive, you better start lobbying to keep no-fault insurance in your state now before it's too late...
ya.....theres quite a bit more to it than "just toss a dam on every moving body of water",
this smacks of hte same stupidty that tries to deny there's a drought in california, that tries to say they dont need to ration water, because they still allow rain runoff to run to the ocean, IE, they dont damn up the streams and rivers and stop every last drop.
after all, fuck nature.
what's it need water for?
(and no, the damns aren't saving any fish...stupid fucking bullshit)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Can you offer a citation? I can't find anything on google indicating that coal is anything but being used faster than it is replenished.
Gas tax might forces someone to take the bus or walk. Sales tax might forces someone to buy oatmeal instead of eating in a restaurant. Paying for roads IS forcing people to pay for thing they might not have purchased.
"legitimate insurance plan"
It was legitimate before ObamaCare. Simply writing a law didn't change that.
AND if you're asking me, ObamaCare isn't a "legitimate insurance plan" it is a tax. If it isn't a tax, then it is unconstitutional.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I know better. Absent strong AI there will be no truly autonomous cars.
We don't even have a working theory for making a strong AI.
All we will have is driver assists, which will make people so much worse drivers the overall safety situation won't change. Just like slushboxes, they should have more focus for driving, but in reality automatic drivers are the worst on the road.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You realize that there is water in the streams because we dammed them, right?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That's not the definition that started this thread. All it has to do is be replenished fast enough that there is no chance of it running out in the foreseeable future.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Coal?
Yes, coal is indeed likely being used faster than it is replenished.
Does this matter if we have 50,000 years of coal in the ground?
The current estimates are based only on existing mines, the whole bloody planet is swimming in coal and oil.
Note: This doesn't mean I think we should burn it all, I actually don't. We just have a LOT of it...
If it did, would it produce too much energy from polluting sources?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Or it's not enough yet. What does it cost to pull a metric ton of CO2 out of the air?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
At the end of the day I'd expect a Palin Whitehouse to be a bit of chaos quickly taken over by bureaucrats as she realizes that being President is a) confusing, and b) a lot of hard work. It would be incompetent and shoddily run but the kind of damage people can work around.
Trump is the kind of person who will follow through with an absolutely terrible idea because it's his idea and he won't let anyone deter him, he can cause real damage.
Have you stopped to consider that some of his comments of the past few months are actually quite carefully considered? He would not be getting anything close to the media attention without them, he is leading the republican polls, so clearly he is doing something right.
Have you stopped to consider he's only polling so high because he has huge name recognition and he's essentially a sideshow. The Republican primaries have been a gong-show since 2012 and I'm doubtful that most of the people indicating him would be actually do so if they thought he had a chance of winning.
Why does everyone want to hire a lawyer or professional lifetime politician to be President, instead of a CEO?
Another example, Steve Jobs was a PITA to work for, he'd yell, scream, tell you were you a moron, yet he clearly knew something.
Some of the nicest people in the world would make for crappy leaders.
CEO is a very different skillset than President. I don't have any objection to CEOs as Presidents in general though I think Trump would be terrible. Jobs too, I don't think he'd have been bad, but the things that made him special as a CEO wouldn't translate to being a President.
And back to Trump, have you considered the possibility that his behaviour is just some early manifestation of senile dementia? I don't want to focus on it because it sounds very insulting, but at the same time his behaviour and seeming obliviousness is downright bizarre. He wouldn't be the first politician past retirement age to start acting erratically and be diagnosed with dementia a few years later, if you're considering him for President I think it's a possibility you have to take seriously.
I stole this Sig
There reasoning is such: The gas tax brings in money. It then becomes the governments money. When they spend it on roads it becomes an oil subsidy.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Please calculate how much it costs to remove a ton(lbs) of CO2 out of the air. You'll then have your answer in terms of the subsidy.
Being allowed to pollute the environment *should* come at a cost.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The price of pollution can be tied to the cost of reversing it. If you want to know the cost of putting a bunch of chemicals in the water, just use price of filtering them out again. If we can't actually "fix" the problem through direct action (e.g. hole in the ozone), then determine what level of CFC emission is acceptable and set the price of emission such that we ensure the actual emissions are below that threshold.
Economists are smart. There are very good and mostly objective ways of coming up with these price points.
Besides, who decides what is "energy intensive"? I'm pretty sure the old folks who rely on motorized gear just to stay out of a nursing home, or a crippled kid who relies on power-hungry medical equipment just to stay alive would object to your assessment, no?
Energy intensive == using more energy. The kid who needs power-hungry medical equipment is not any less "energy intensive" simply because he/she *needs* that machine, that would be a subjective assessment. An ambulance that gets 10MPG isn't any more fuel efficient than a moving truck that gets 10MPG, simply because it is used to save lives.
The economist answer is to have everyone pay the fair market price for energy (actually everything), and if some people need extra assistance in paying for goods (i.e. social welfare), then you give them vouchers or cash. You don't pervert the market and subsidize the goods to make them artificially cheaper for everyone.
If little sick Billy's electric bill is an additional $300 per month for his medical equipment, then you have (insert social program) reimburse Billy's family $300/month. This way there is still an incentive for Billy's family to try and use less electricity when it makes sense. If you just give Billy's family free electricity, then there is no incentive for them to spend $x on new weatherstripping, even if it would drastically cut their energy usage.
If you give out subsidies for solar panels, then lots of people may get them, even if it doesn't make economic sense for them, or the environment.
When you have a well running market, the choices of what makes sense economically translate into what is best from a resource management perspective. We don't ever get that perfect market, but we should be striving for that.
The market is NOT the best solution for energy. The market will always produce too much energy from polluting sources.
Nonsense, the market is perfect for energy...
The reason it pollutes is there is no bill for the pollution... If we have, for whatever reason, decided that carbon is pollution, then tax it and be done with it.
Let the market come up with solutions, don't try and pick winners. The government SUCKS at picking winners, but it is pretty decent at picking losers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Drought is killing hydro. Reduced H2O levels reduce the hrs a plant can run and the capacity it can run at. This drives up the cost of hydro power. http://www.energy.ca.gov/droug...
The drought in California is decreasing hydro-generated electricity. It's a good thing that solar is increasing at a fast rate, and is in fact playing a role in making up for the hydro shortfall.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Sales and gas taxes aren't levied by the feds. My state doesn't even have a sales tax. In theory, the gas tax goes to fund the roads. If there are no roads, the gas stations probably wouldn't be selling a whole lot of gas. With no roads, the gas stations probably wouldn't be able to get gas themselves.
You're reaching for analogies but they're not there. Your gas tax example might explain why some of us now pay "pole fees" when we pay for electricity, but they don't justify taxing a form of energy into oblivion under the feel good fantasy of clean air.
I'm on my second hybrid vehicle and there are a number of EVs in my town. The market can work if we let it. Solar isn't popular in my area because as I mentioned, it hasn't worked out for the few that have tried it. The last thing we need the feds doing is mandating it or using taxes to effectively mandate it.
It should be the people's right to choose. The pollution argument is weak since we've all been forced to pay more for pollution controls on newer vehicles, had to give up our light bulbs, etc. It's never enough. Why not skip directly to population control? Would even that make you happy, or would you still say it's not enough?
If that's true, then why would they do it if they were privatized? How do you define "efficient"?
If it's inefficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town, then why would there be two if they were privatized?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Why is it not efficient? As long as they don't have to wear much equipment, nor spend much of the chemicals, nor risk lives and limb, the costs of such a move are negligible.
There is no such thing. "Natural monopoly" is a myth created by statists already in government to justify their control of our lives.
Who said, they must limit themselves to one town? They don't — not any more than KFC does. On the contrary, the current situation, where each little town has its own department is inefficient. Multiple such companies could open shop in multiple places — competing with each other across town- and state-borders.
Sure. But it does not have to be government-owned.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It was the insurance company that changed your doctor or your plan, not the ACA.
Yes... because of ACA...
I've had to change my doctor 4 times in the past 25 years because of changes to my employer provided health care plan.
I live in a county which is mostly covered by a private fire department - actually there are three but there is one which the majority of people subscribe to. My brother-in-law is actually a firefighter employed by the larger one. If you have a structure fire they and do not have a contract with one of the three they will show up at your house, start fighting the fire and at the same time will be asking you to sign a contract acknowledging a large bill for the cost of fighting the fire which if not paid will become a lien against your property. If you object to signing the contract they will stand back, make sure the fire doesn't spread to your neighbor's property and let you deal with the fire on your own. If the wrong fire department shows up and the one you have a contract with is not there the three companies have an agreement with each other to reimburse the costs of the fire. They respond to automobile accidents and the like free of charge as a community service. The system seems to work OK. I have never heard of anyone complaining about it except one guy who had recently moved to the county from somewhere in California a few years back and ran for county commissioner on the platform that a private fire department was somehow immoral and we needed to go to a tax supported fire district. Even though he was registered Republican our local (mostly moribund) Democratic party put their support behind him and he was still defeated in a landslide.
If we want to just kick over the table, there are numerous choices that aren't Donald Trump. We could just choose the president via random lottery and also give them $7 billion so they aren't in anyone's pocket. I think if we did that, we'd have a better outcome than a Trump presidency. At least with a random person there is a reasonably good chance that they will be a moral.
I'm all for not electing the same corrupt assholes we've been electing, but I'm not ready to flush the whole country down a classy gold plated toilet just yet.
I would trust the nations nuclear weapons with Kim Kardashian more than with Trump.
At the end of the day I'd expect a Palin Whitehouse to be a bit of chaos quickly taken over by bureaucrats as she realizes that being President is a) confusing, and b) a lot of hard work. It would be incompetent and shoddily run but the kind of damage people can work around.
Ha! That is sad, funny, and probably true all at the same time.
Trump is the kind of person who will follow through with an absolutely terrible idea because it's his idea and he won't let anyone deter him, he can cause real damage.
Perhaps, but what if it is a good idea?
Also, I pointed out that he wouldn't become King (despite what Obama has been trying), he has to deal with Congress and the SCOTUS.
Have you stopped to consider he's only polling so high because he has huge name recognition and he's essentially a sideshow.
Yes I have... I also have considered that a whole lot of Americans are tired of the same-old, same-old...
At some point, people get sick of it and want change... and not the "hope and change variety" which is what we got with Obama, and nothing changed.
CEO is a very different skillset than President.
So... leading a very large company of many diverse people... is very different than leading a very large nation of many diverse people?
I have to disagree, I think they are a very compatible skill set. Leadership is leadership, be it in the military, a company, or a nation...
No one can do it all themselves, you must be able to build groups of people up and get them to work together. This is true in the military, in companies, and in nations.
Right now we're a nation divided, nothing Obama says is anything but dividing in nature.
Trump may well kick out half the illegals, then put the other half to work.
And back to Trump, have you considered the possibility that his behaviour is just some early manifestation of senile dementia? I don't want to focus on it because it sounds very insulting, but at the same time his behaviour and seeming obliviousness is downright bizarre. He wouldn't be the first politician past retirement age to start acting erratically and be diagnosed with dementia a few years later, if you're considering him for President I think it's a possibility you have to take seriously.
It is a fair point... No, it isn't insulting, it is a real concern. Of course, it would also be real for Hillary and Biden as well.
---
They are all too old, vote for me, I'm 40... old enough to have some wisdom, young enough to be willing to change.
My political viewpoints would combine Kirk, Spock, and Bones. How so?
Simple:
You need Bones for his heart, for his compassion towards others. You need him for his very human side that looks at everyone with care and love. He cares for the sick, the infirm, the weak. He believes in all life being special. His speech in the TOS episode "Balance of Terror" sums up the importance of every person.
You need Spock for his very practical outlook. His fact based approach to everything is summed up perfectly in Star Trek II when he realizes the Enterprise will never survive the Genesis blast without Warp Drive. Someone has to go into the reactor to fix it, but will die in the process. Since he'll die anyway if someone DOESN'T fix it, it is an easy decision to do it, knowing that both choices involve his death, but one choice involves saving everyone else. In other words, he has figured out that he is going to die, rather than fight it, he decides to go out the best way possible.
You need Kirk for his leadership, his focus, and because sometimes you just need someone punched in the face. His solution to the Kobayashi Maru training exercise is why you need him. As he once said, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario", and "I don't like to lose".
In 1998 Clinton and Congress got the budget to BALANCE, once. That is they took in as much as they spent.
That's called shrinking the deficit to zero.
You are thinking of the debt which is >0 even if the deficit == 0
I've had to change my doctor 4 times in the past 25 years because of changes to my employer provided health care plan.
That's fine, but it ignores the reality that ACA turned insurance upside down...
More than 20% of my wife's existing patients had their insurance change all at once.
It was ACA, even if you don't want to hear that.
I would trust the nations nuclear weapons with Kim Kardashian more than with Trump.
Fair enough... I disagree with you on that example, but fair enough. :)
California? Dams?
I thought hydroelectric dams need water to operate.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And all of those people are running for the GOP presidential nomination.
You are welcome on my lawn.
When invading other countries to, umm ... combat tairsum and impose demorcacy, costs 40-90 cents per gallon.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
OK, but even if the rate of replenishment were zero or even negative, there would be "no chance" of it running out in the "foreseeable future" if there were enough of it.
HornWumpus said that "[Coal is replenishing] fast enough that there is no chance of it running out."
If we have so much that we will not run out any time soon, fine. But if that is the case, then the rate of replenishment doesn't matter at all.
I was under the impression that coal was being used at orders of magnitude faster than it is being replenished, and I thought this was being disputed in this thread, but maybe it actually isn't.
Am I correct in saying that a replenishment rate of zero is still fast enough to keep up with demand?
The reason it pollutes is there is no bill for the pollution... If we have, for whatever reason, decided that carbon is pollution, then tax it and be done with it.
While I totally agree with this solution, most proponents of the "free market" would say that this is central planing and socialism.
The pollution argument is weak since we've all been forced to pay more for pollution controls on newer vehicles, had to give up our light bulbs, etc. It's never enough.
Of course it's not enough. It's a drop in the ocean.
I'm on my second hybrid vehicle and there are a number of EVs in my town
And there would be a lot more if people were forced to pay the real price associated with pollution from their gas vehicule.
If that's true, then why would they do it if they were privatized? How do you define "efficient"?
Because private companies are not always efficient. In this case, the best thing to do is to force everyone to pay for the fire departement, so that they don't let any house burn.
For a definition, Wikipedia is your friend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It wouldn't be efficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town. It's much better to have a larger one with better equipment.
If it's inefficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town, then why would there be two if they were privatized?
Because privatization doesn't always result in the most efficient solution.
If we have so much that we will not run out any time soon, fine. But if that is the case, then the rate of replenishment doesn't matter at all.
I don't think anyone really knows how fast it is being made, or what the total amount really is...
People were claiming in the 70s that we'd run out of oil by... now... yet we have more known reserves of oil today than we did in the 70s.
People, even experts, like to think they know more than they do. The truth is, we simply don't know.
---
The funny thing is, if you posed the question another way, "Do you think we should burn every last pound of coal and every last gallon of oil in the ground", I suspect you'd get VERY few people to say yes to that.
So then we come to, "How much SHOULD we burn?" That is a much more reasonable question, one that neither side wants to discuss because they are both too busy bashing and blaming the other.
I'm much more of a centrist and moderate than I ever used to be. I also find that I listen more and respect other viewpoints more than I used to. Strange what age and maturity does to you. :)
Can you show us on the doll where the bad posters touched you?
Why is it not efficient? As long as they don't have to wear much equipment, nor spend much of the chemicals, nor risk lives and limb, the costs of such a move are negligible.
It's inefficient because they are not available in case there is a fire somewhere else, plus they are not doing anything useful, or at least a lot less useful than fighting a fire, which they could be doing.
"Natural monopoly" is a myth created by statists already in government to justify their control of our lives.
Good one. First time I hear it. Good laugh. Of course there are natural monopolies. For a more neutral article, Wikipedia is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Who said, they must limit themselves to one town? They don't — not any more than KFC does. On the contrary, the current situation, where each little town has its own department is inefficient. Multiple such companies could open shop in multiple places — competing with each other across town- and state-borders.
I'd open one in every town. Of course I wouldn't have any firemen or trucks. I would just collect the money and not answer any calls. Those who get their house burnt would get a monthly refund, since I failed to provide them with service for the month.
Of course, every private fire departement would need it's own aqueduc and private fire hydrant network, right?
And how much do you save with this system? I'd be surprised if there was any savings, considering it is a lot more complicated to manage.
I don't think anyone really knows how fast it is being made, or what the total amount really is...
I know I certainly don't, which is why I wanted a citation.
I am not really on any extreme side of this debate, I just thought I saw a claim that contradicted my worldview (which happens frequently), and wanted a citation to determine for myself if it was credible.
As it turns out I think the statement was simply very misleading, even if *maybe* technically true.
I'm pretty open to differing points of view. I don't think there is much to be gained by attaching an ideology that you are bound to defend at all costs. When when I do decide to drink the kool-aid of an ideology, I am very careful about what it is (e.g. scientific method, rules of logic, etc)
It isn't a tax, as in it's not a line-item on your tax bill
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...
Health care: individual responsibility (see instructions) Full-year coverage []
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...
Health care: individual responsibility.
You must either:
Indicate on line 61 that you, your
spouse (if filing jointly), and your dependents
had health care coverage
throughout 2014,
Claim an exemption from the
health care coverage requirement for
some or all of 2014 and attach Form
8965, or
Make a shared responsibility payment
if, for any month in 2014, you,
your spouse (if filing jointly), or your
dependents did not have coverage and
do not qualify for a coverage exemption.
See the instructions for line 61 and Form
8965 for more information.
There is your ACA tax-form line item.
It's the people with the "can do" attitude that lead us to the future.
A can-do attitude is useful when you have an idea about how to do something new and nay-sayers then argue against that idea ever working. What we have here is a political goal with no clue about how to achieve it which is not the same thing. The problem with a 100 % 'renewable' energy solution is that the power is very variable. Show me a plan to deal with that and I'll be interested. Until then this appears nothing more than political hot air.
The only person who has a remote chance of caring about us is Trump.
Trump doesn't give one shit about people, and all you need to do is look at his history.
I am well aware of that... but he also has nothing to gain by screwing us at this point. He is now old, very wealthy, and has nothing else to do but take the country in a new direction.
Bullshit. People like Trump want one thing and one thing only: MORE. They don't care about you. They don't care about the US, the world, terrorists, or any of the crap. They are amoral, borderline sociopaths who'd just as soon wipe an entire third world country off the map just so they can make 10 cents on the dollar for some useless piece of electronic garbage.
Yeah, I'm tired of the same old same old crap in Washington as well, but I'm not about to hand over the reigns of a world super power to asshole blowhard with the science understanding of a 2 year old. That's not different. That's just plain fucking stupid.
He also isn't owned by lobbyists or 30 years of political connections the way Bush and Clinton are.
Oh, but he wants to be. Nothing pleases a someone like Trump than having his ass kissed, cock sucked, and pockets lined by the world elite. He's leading the republican polls, and he's already got people with knee-pads and wallets just begging for the chance.
If Bush or Clinton are elected, exactly nothing will change. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.
Which is a hell of a lot better than giving a racist asshole the keys to the kingdom. The whole point of an election is to make things better, not worse. Also, considering that Trump has pissed off just about everyone on both sides of the aisle, exactly how does that improve the situation in Washington?
At least Trump will kick over the table and say, "new direction".
No, he will say "BEND OVER BITCHES" and proceed to screw us over through idiocy and malice, because that's what he does.
Will it turn out well?
Absolutely not. He's already expressed his almost laughable grasp of complex subjects and has outright lied on multiple occasions. Worse, he doesn't even apologize when caught. He just doubles down. Why do people think American politics is a joke in the rest of the world? Because idiots like Trump actually can lead in the polls. I'm sure they'd be laughing if they weren't terrified that someone like Trump has a finger on the button.
Hard to say, we won't really know without trying, but at some point we either try something new, or accept the current situation forever.
Really? Have you even WATCHED what the hell this douchebag has been saying and doing since he began his campaign?
Look, I understand your desire to try something different. I share the same desire. But Trump is by leaps and bounds the WORST candidate on the list.
~X~
When the Bush administration took over from Clinton they were warned to keep an eye on Al-Qaeda but they did nothing until a meeting in August just before 9/11. They were more worried about Iraq. Saying the Clinton administration failed to prevent the attack on 9/11 is assuming their greater attention on Al-Qaeda would have not made a difference. That may or may not be true but it's obvious that the Bush administration dropped the ball on Al-Qaeda when they first took over.
I think you are mistakenly assuming that driverless means AI will need to be good enough to drive better than average. I don't think that is true. All they need to do is be able to drive better than crappy drivers on the road today (e.g., those who make up the bottom 25% of drivers). Learners, elderly, those that have the attention span of a gnat or chat endlessly on phones whilst they drive, etc... There many more of them than average drivers.
When the driverless cars get good enough to be better than these people, insurance companies will push-out the crappy drivers into the arms of rental cars controlled by companies the size of Google or Uber. The insurance companies would like to do that today, but the government won't let them because in many cases it's a "hardship" to remove driving privileges for them (although they sometimes have license restrictions to daytime driving) so they force an uninsurable motorist pool as a tax on insurance companies. If the government had a viable alternative, don't you think they'd take it?
The problem in this new world will be the affordability of liability insurance for the average driver. If it's your fault and you hit one of these rental cars that is used nearly 100% uptime, the loss of revenue component of liability is going to raise insurance premiums through the roof...
Well, I don't like the ACA much but it's better overall than what we had before. My preference would be for something along the lines of the Canadian health care system.
"No it wasn't. IT was designed from the beginning to snooker the American people into a broken "insurance" scam designed to break the medical/insurance industry."
The American people is such a convenient term. Let's parse it for what you really mean--only those that had health insurance, not the millions that had jobs but no health insurance.
The old system was eating away a larger percentage of our GDP, year over year. All while the percentage of the population enrolled in a decent health insurance plan continued to fall. iow, costs kept rising while enrollment fell and people gamed the old system. And the projections were the costs and decreased enrollment was getting worse at a faster rate. The industry was so bad it was cheaper to let people die and fight them in settlements than do actual payouts for standard, medically acceptable treatments.
8 years a certain party had to fix the old system, and couldn't and wouldn't, in fact you bankrupted a large part of the nation in the meantime. 6 years prior, you stonewalled a better system for the time and it never passed (losing 14 years since of tweaking it), while they were worried some intern sucked some presidents cock. Meanwhile, people died, got screwed, and the health care system got so worse and screwed up, the political will to get the imperfect ACA gained political momentum and won.
And now you want to cry about what was gained.
The ACA deserves a lot of criticism. And yet, it's still better than what we had overall. THAT is how bad the old system was. You lost. Want to whine now? Remember what it replaced. Some people got screwed? Cry me a river; more people got screwed, year over year, by the health insurance industry in the decades prior. Ooo, some promises weren't met, some politician lied, tough. Better than the non-covered getting worse and impacting the covered that was becoming increasingly so.
It was designed to fail? To get it to pass, the ACA proponents listened to the other side of the table, and then those on that side conveniently, after listened to and implemented near all their ideas. pulled away from the vote. Let's be careful what failures were really put in place by whom.
For all the whiney "I lost my blah blah", there are millions that gained good coverage. It's still better than what we had for the nation. In any case, we'll know in another 10 years who was really right, but my guess is the projected GDP percentage extrapolated to actual costs, we'll be far down from where we would have been.
You can keep your plan (Lie)
--You could. If you couldn't, you insurance company fubar'd you, not the government, because it cut into their profit margin so they readjusted.
It isn't a tax (Lie)
--It was already established before it was passed what the fines and taxable conditions were.
You can keep your doctor(Lie)
--You can. You just have to pay more.
It will cost less(Lie)
--Individually, no, but that was already being clarified prior to it passing and the message adjusted. You just weren't listening. Most projected rises in costs, but at a lower pace than the old system. Even with the health care industry going for massive gains and adjustments prior to the ACA's actual implementation that drove costs up worse, it still will settled out LESS than the projected numbers. That's why there's been so much consolidation in the industry, because their profitability is down.
You'll have better coverage (Lie)
--Depends. If you had insurance before, you can blame more the companies gaming the old plans prior to the ACA going into effect to reduce their exposures. If you didn't have coverage at all before, you definitely have far better coverage. As the economy improves, coverages were increase more and more, not only as more people get jobs and get coverages, but also as coverages become competitive again as benefits in weighing your job choices.
When you point out lies, maybe you would do better to point out all the years of lies under the old system that didn't deliver to all of the American citizenry. I'll take the new "lies" over the old any day.
Which fucking retards are moderating this thread? Seriously, you dipshits. +1 Fits the Narrative -1 Uncomfortable thinking detected? How the fuck is a comment off-topic (GGP) and the reply a +1? A reply is not any more on-topic than the OP.
Fucking morons. Seriously, die in a fire.
Yes, I expect to be modded down. My karma will survive and it will not go any lower than the highest rating possible. Waste your damn childish points. I'll help you out, flame, troll, and off-topic are the most relevant. And I will still not give a shit and I will still post it as my own comment and not as some AC. Grow the fuck up and moderate objectively. Nothing, ever, on this site has ever been on-topic - including this.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I would really like to see Government v2.0 where candidates are held accountable for lying to the public when they fail to follow through on the promises that got them elected in the first place :|
Doesn't Mitsubishi or someone make a pebble bed reactor you can fit on the back of a 18 wheeler for about $10 Million? Thought I read that somewhere. I would totally put a Mitsubishi reactor in my back yard if I could sell the excess electricity on the local grid. I'm sure the neighbors would have no objections to Clean! Atomic! Energy! and neither should Hillary. Reallly! It's just like fire! The handbook says so! All that hysterical handwaving is just hippies stuck in the 70's!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Heh... I ranted about this up-thread, with your post being the one that caught my eye. I decided I had too much emotionally invested and took a trip over to play with testing a new Linux distro and then I returned to keep reading this thread. What really pissed me off is your post was -1 and then the reply was +1. An off-topic post's reply is not any more on-topic. Then there were just a metric-shit-ton of crappy moderations after that.
I am disgusted, really. Usually the moderation is much better but it has taken a turn for the worse in the past month or two. (That is subjective.) This thread, and this particular sub-thread, really take the cake, however. If you can not moderate objectively, do not moderate. I, personally, do not moderate because who am I to judge what is seen and is not seen by default? Hopefully, some folks with sense and points can undo the damage. Sometimes that happens.
In my case, well, I am not sure if it is even realistically possible to make my karma go below the 'excellent' rating so I do not really care. I suspect that, even if it did matter, I'd still post stuff like this and just accept the karma hit. I have never been a fan of letting what people think control my speech. That has, of course, resulted in some confrontations in my life but, at least here, it can only really amount to pixels bombarding my eyeballs. In the worst case scenario, I get a chance to chuckle at the replies. I do mind, however, fundamental issues (such as moderation) being used for something other than objective critique.
Anyhow, I felt your post was on-topic and brought up a salient discussion. I felt you contributed and, if I actually moderated and had points, I would rate your comment higher than it currently is. An injustice has been done, my good sir, and hopefully folks are inclined to make reparations. Such has been known to happen, from time to time.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No it wasn't. IT was designed from the beginning to snooker the American people into a broken "insurance" scam designed to break the medical/insurance industry.
Errr... what?
The insurance industry loves the ACA. They have a lot more customers than before; they are making money hand-over-fist. Look up the estimates on repealing the ACA; the health insurance industry would crash (and the deficit would grow).
You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own (false) facts. There are a lot of reasons to dislike the ACA, but "breaking the medical/insurance industry" sure ain't one.
I don't have your faith in the "well running market", but I generally agree with your approach. The problem is that the "well running market" is a myth because of temporal lag in feed-forward loops. (They aren't relly feedback loops, because of time not standing still. But if you use a linearized simplification you can think of them as such.) You need governers in place to limit both positive and negative reinforcement of trends and to act as friction for rate of change.
Unfortunately, I know of no way to accomplish this. E.g., regulatory capture is an unsolved problem, because those in power don't *want* it solved. The simple way to solve it would be to cut the feed forward, i.e., forbid economic interactions between the regulators and those regulated not only during their term of office, but also afterwards, and, ideally, also before appointment. But that would require the development of expertise in an apprenticeship, which would promulgate whatever culture the regulatory agency adopted.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I think you aren't including sufficient battery backup. But they aren't much more expensive.
The real problem is the the stability of the US dollar is subsidized by petroleum only being sold in dollars. It's my belief that that's why there's such a US military presence in the middle east. (IIRC, the invasion of Iran coincidentally happened after the prior government agreed to sell oil in euros. Then there were these WMDs discovered (which turned out to be faked). Just coincidentally.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
PG&E has experimental solar electric plants that are doing quite well. I'm less convinced that off-the-grid makes any sense within cities...unless it's the entire city that goes off the grid, in the sense the the city maintains its own grid.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Speaking of Trump, I'd like to see how he deals with Putin.
mfwright@batnet.com
Thank you for reminding me. I am an idiot. I was really concerned with some of the moderation that I have seen over the past couple of months and this thread (I have mentioned it already in this thread) was one that caught my attention and not in a good way. I had forgotten that people tend to really be unable to be objective when the election cycle is in play. Yes, I had forgotten how bad it truly was. Yes, that makes me an idiot. It does not, however, excuse those moderators who are engaged in such acts.
I suppose that it is time to either just ignore moderations for a while or to actually use my mod points to counteract this as much as I can. I do not typically moderate, it is just not who I am. However, this may be a good time for me to do so. I understand that we humans are not very good about being objective but I do have high standards for this site and, usually, /. kind of sort of meets those standards (for varied degrees of meets). It is pretty clear what the moderations are for and pretty clear that it is not objective. So, again, thanks for reminding me why I have been seeing this trend for a couple of months and why this thread stands out in particular.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Debt != deficit. Deficit is per year; debt is "sum of all yearly deficits (plus interest and some other crud, I'm not an economist)".
Also, see one of the many deficit sites like: http://www.davemanuel.com/hist...
Clinton ran a (small) surplus for 3-4 years, which means a negative deficit for 3-4 years. He didn't have a big effect on the debt, true, but considering that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama all ran deficits (the Rs mostly increasing-per-year, the D decreasing-per-year) not growing the debt is a pretty impressive deal.
I wish I could expect Clinton II to run a surplus the same as her husband did, but that seems unlikely. Bill's budget involved both parties compromising plus Bill raising taxes. Both of those (compromise and raising taxes) are completely rejected by the Rs in congress now. I expect Hillary to lower the deficit but not zero it. But I'd love to be proven wrong.
I will, most likely, not be voting for Trump. I am not a fan. I worry that his success will make him unable to objectively view the needs of those who have not been successful. I suspect it will be Trump vs. Clinton. I am old, I have seen the pendulum swing in both directions and it is due to change again any time now. I suspect that this means that the Republicans will win this election and that it will mean Trump is in the Whitehouse. (Opera did not like the word Whitehouse. It suggested whorehouse instead. Very apt.)
I am a huge fan of donating. I donate a lot of money to varied causes because I think that is my end of the social bargain. So far as I know, Trump is not really a huge player there - though he does some donating. I would like to know which charities he has donated to in the past and what percentage of his income that was. Tax records are nice but not all donations go on tax records and there is no reason to list those that are not going to reduce your tax liability. You can only donate so much to reduce liabilities, after that you are donating without the tax benefit - which is well and good for me as I do not donate to get tax relief, I donate because I feel it is the honorable thing to do.
Back to Hillary... The populace has not seen much good come out of the current administration. This has, in my observations, historically been an indicator that the opposing party was due to win. Hillary is unlikely to win the presidential election - there is too much dirt to throw at her. This would not necessarily be a problem but her dirt is too widespread, meaning that there is something to dislike about her for everyone. We, the nerd vote, are annoyed with her private email server and the implications that has - as one example. The Middle East fiasco is a reason for the anti-violence folks to not like her (though I do not see many of them voting for Trump). And, obviously, there are more issues but they spread across a broad spectrum and anyone can find a reason to dislike her and this gives plenty of ammunition to her opponents.
At the other side, we have a bunch of Republicans nominally running. Trump is likely to get the GOP nomination in the primaries. He has lots of dirt but very little political dirt. He has no public vote history to track. He has no experience in the arena. While he might do things well it is a shot in the dark. An interesting thing to watch will be the mental gymnastics that people will do to vote for him after claiming they would not vote for Obama because he was not an experienced politician.
I, myself, will likely be doing as I always do which is throwing my vote away on a third party candidate. The Republicans that fail in the primaries may well do what they have often done and co-opt the Libertarian name (they are not, they have no concept of liberty) and run as such in hopes of remaining relevant. It should be interesting but I am not seeing a single candidate that I think is really qualified for the job and has a reasonable chance at success. I do kind of like Sanders but he is unlikely to get the primaries. I expect anyone who claims they will not vote for Hillary will be called a sexist (exactly like I, a partially black man, was a racist for not voting for Obama) and I expect that tactic to be successful.
Anyhow... I have enough popcorn for everybody. I planned ahead. It should be about as amusing as a three ring circus with Down's Syndrome afflicted persons as the center ring act. Which is to say, it should be pretty damned amusing but it is really inappropriate to laugh.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It's possible, but to be honest what are his good ideas? All I've heard is general mud-slinging and policy proposals that have been all over the map.
Yes I have... I also have considered that a whole lot of Americans are tired of the same-old, same-old...
At some point, people get sick of it and want change... and not the "hope and change variety" which is what we got with Obama, and nothing changed.
Well Obama did achieve health care reform, but I think the lesson of Obama is the opposition can just decide en-mass to politicize everything, cooperate on nothing, and the President gets the blame.
I don't know what Obama you're listening to but he doesn't actually do much that's divisive. As evidence a lot of the major political complaints (easy on illegals, easy on terror, anti-Christian, etc) are demonstrably false.
Either way even Obama does offend he does it as a side effect, Trump offends on purpose, that's not a healthy characteristic for a leader.
As for the CEO, they've got a lot more unilateral power, they aren't fighting factions in the company the same way a President would be. I think that's a lot of Trump's flaw, he's used to saying "I'm the boss, so do it my way" and when that doesn't work he basically throws a tantrum. But a President can't run government that way, a Trump presidency would just be a stream of tantrums.
And back to Trump, have you considered the possibility that his behaviour is just some early manifestation of senile dementia?
It is a fair point... No, it isn't insulting, it is a real concern. Of course, it would also be real for Hillary and Biden as well.
---
Possibly, but neither are acting erratic (at least no more than when they were younger). Trump is, I think there's a substantial probability that within 5 years he'll be in steep cognitive decline.
I stole this Sig
They are all too old, vote for me, I'm 40... old enough to have some wisdom, young enough to be willing to change.
If there's one real legitimate criticism I'd have of Obama it's that he was elected too young.
If Hillary had won and he was just running now I think he'd be a far stronger President, I think his willingness to enact change was stymied by his lack of experience in dealing with the Republican counter response.
I stole this Sig
I would choose to pay more for clean energy because it impacts the environment less. I already do pay more for electricity than I need to - I have solar and wind. I replaced the panels before they could pay themselves off because the newer panels are more efficient than the ones I had installed seven years ago.
I pay more in giving than I need to - I need to pay taxes. I also pay quite a bit in donations to charitable causes. Much more than I need to.
I pay more for consumables than I need to. I prefer the higher quality. I prefer food that tastes better. I prefer clothing that looks good and is comfortable to wear.
Just because you're cheap does not mean that the rest of us are. If this is something the market can fairly sort then, by all means, let it do it. But do not go assuming that people will be cheap just because you find shopping at Wal*Mart to be acceptable and because you do not value the local retailers, products, or produce.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It was designed to fail, so that Americans would jump into single payer, crap healthcare.
You're drinking too much of the Fox News Kool-Aid, there. The ACA is a crappy law, but it is not going to force anyone to single payer. Quite the opposite, in fact; the ACA is actually the largest corporate handout in the history of government. Insurance companies are continuing to screw customers, and now customers don't have an option. Notice how quickly the single payer option was thrown off the table and completely under the bus? The reason for that is simple; the insurance industry owns congress. For that matter, they own the white house as well. Single payer never stood a chance, and never will for at least the next 20 years. The insurance industry is just too profitable and too powerful, and the ACA ensured that nothing will challenge that for a very long time.
But you can rest easy. You clearly are deathly afraid of single payer; I can tell you that it won't come any time soon. I'd be first in line to sign up for it if it did, but it won't.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The problem is that most people don't care / don't want to know, and yes, are cheap. There wouldn't be that much coal plants today if people cared.
I love my Russian fireplace. It has vents to the whole house and the fans inside the vents are on thermostats. A Russian fireplace is awesome. I have plenty of acreage and will never run out of wood. I harvest it myself and have a wood splitter so there is not a whole bunch of labor that I do not like - I love felling trees (it is an art and a science) and I have a tractor with a heavy duty 10 ton winch so I can tote tree length to a yard and buck it up there and trailer it out for processing to 24" lengths. If I ever get lazy(er) I can have wood cut, split, and delivered. The only modification I made to the fireplace design is it has a custom forged door that allows me to cut off or control the air intake.
Many people are inclined to skip the idea of wood and see it as bad for the environment. Done properly it is the perfect renewable resource. Clear cutting is silly. Timber stand improvement is excellent and wonderful for the ecology - animals live around areas where the land changes from fields to trees or from trees to water or whatnot. (There's a name for those types of environments but I forgot the name.) Anyhow, animals live in areas near those breaks - not deep in the forest typically. It is great for them, great for us, and great for the environment in general. Err... So long as it is properly managed. There is that caveat.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I think my only point was that you said, "You don't." No, some of us do. See the EV craze for instance. That began with early adopters who did so not because it was cheaper but because they felt it was the responsible thing to do. I suspect the market could decide this, in time, but I do not think it will be allowed to decide it. I suppose the value of that is debatable but, yeah, there are a number of folks who will "do the right thing" simply because it is the right thing. There are others who will do it because it is trendy. Others will do it because they are contrary folks. Eventually enough will adopt it and the price will be more reasonable - maybe. I do it because I can and I try to minimize my impact so I can feel better about my abuses in other areas.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The EV craze wouldn't exist without subsidies, regulations, and gas taxes.
It's not enough. It's a market failure. Too much pollution is being produced because not enough people care. And expecting more people to care is hopeless. The only way enough people will care enough is if the cost of pollution is passed to the polluter. There are two ways to do that: taxes, or cap and trade. In both case, so-called "free-market" supporters won't like it.
I worry that his success will make him unable to objectively view the needs of those who have not been successful. I suspect it will be Trump vs. Clinton.
The irony is that I view Clinton in the same light. She has, in one form or another, been in government since 1973.
I don't think she can see the needs of anyone either. That being said, what has she done lately that wasn't paid for by other people's money?
At least Trump has built stuff, made stuff, and run businesses. Sure, some haven't always worked, most successful people have had that happen to them once or twice. I know I've had hard times and had to close a business before.
But I didn't whine, cry for a bailout, ask for handouts. I picked myself up, put my big boy boots on, and got back to work.
I don't LIKE Trump... But I can RESPECT Trump for what he has built. Clinton hasn't built anything.
I am a huge fan of donating. I donate a lot of money to varied causes because I think that is my end of the social bargain. So far as I know, Trump is not really a huge player there - though he does some donating.
Do you want him to give money away to people who didn't earn it, or create a new business that makes hundreds of jobs to help people support themselves?
He does FAR more for needy people than any charity can, he helps the economy move. Charity is nice at times, building a business is far more helpful in the long run to people's well being.
Back to Hillary... The populace has not seen much good come out of the current administration. This has, in my observations, historically been an indicator that the opposing party was due to win. Hillary is unlikely to win the presidential election - there is too much dirt to throw at her. This would not necessarily be a problem but her dirt is too widespread, meaning that there is something to dislike about her for everyone. We, the nerd vote, are annoyed with her private email server and the implications that has - as one example. The Middle East fiasco is a reason for the anti-violence folks to not like her (though I do not see many of them voting for Trump). And, obviously, there are more issues but they spread across a broad spectrum and anyone can find a reason to dislike her and this gives plenty of ammunition to her opponents.
I don't know that she will even win the nomination. She didn't in 2008 when everyone figured she would. She simply isn't likable. Bill was likable, he probably could win (if he could run).
Bernie vs Trump would be much more interesting.
Clinton vs Bush is boring and not even worth paying attention to.
I, myself, will likely be doing as I always do which is throwing my vote away on a third party candidate.
The sad thing is that our system is rigged to make that largely true, in our winner take all system in most states.
Removing the electoral college system and going to a straight national popular vote system is badly needed.
It's possible, but to be honest what are his good ideas? All I've heard is general mud-slinging and policy proposals that have been all over the map.
He has said that he'll kick out the illegals and create jobs for the legal immigrants.
He does know how to create jobs, unlike everyone else running.
BTW, if you actually did kick out most of the illegals, you'd also solve the min wage issue. Right now we have lots of supply of unskilled labor and not enough demand for it, which is why wages haven't moved. Get rid of some of the labor supply and the price of it will go up, wages rise.
Well Obama did achieve health care reform
Meh, in some ways yes... but look at how it was done... with a midnight vote and tricks...
It couldn't have been done a week before or a week after...
That isn't bringing everyone together, that is divisive.
It also isn't very good health care reform, but that won't be clear and obvious to the masses until after Obama is out of office. Those of us who see it from the inside know it won't work long term.
As for the CEO, they've got a lot more unilateral power, they aren't fighting factions in the company the same way a President would be. I think that's a lot of Trump's flaw, he's used to saying "I'm the boss, so do it my way" and when that doesn't work he basically throws a tantrum. But a President can't run government that way, a Trump presidency would just be a stream of tantrums.
Not always... The board of directors is there... Steve Jobs was tossed out of Apple in the mid 80s, if you doubt that...
Of course, Trump doesn't run a public company, so perhaps I could adjust my comment to public company CEOs.
That being said, I would love to be in the Oval Office when someone in his administration came in and he pointed to them and says, "You're Fired!" :)
If Hillary had won and he was just running now I think he'd be a far stronger President, I think his willingness to enact change was stymied by his lack of experience in dealing with the Republican counter response.
If I were President, I'd learn something from my wife...
You can't get anything done in a marriage without compromise and allowing the other side to win sometimes.
It never appears that either the Repubs or Democrats want to let the other side win, EVER!
That doesn't work, you have to cross the isle and give the other side some credit too.
Or better yet, do what my wife does and let the other side think it was their idea! :) I am sure that I *think* I win more often than I do, when she put the idea in there in the first place and then gave me credit.
I dunno... I think the EV craze might exist without the subsidies BUT it would not be as quick or as prevalent. There were people who bought them before the subsidies existed as far as I know. I do not recall there being subsidies when Tesla first brought out the roadster way back when. Well, not at the federal level - I think one or two of the west coast states may have had subsidies?
I think the market could decide but that it would not be quick enough if we really want to change things in a timely fashion. There are people who can and will elect to pay more to be environmentally friendly. We do it because we think it is the appropriate thing to do. Some of us, like myself - I hope, are far from zealots. I do not have, for example, an EV. I eat dead animal flesh. I have a giant RV and am so eager to be content I use that RV to tow a car behind it so that I can more easily move around at a long-term stop. I have many firearms and love to hunt. So, no... I am not some sort of eco-nut - I don't think.
I suspect (or, hope, really) that there are more people like myself. I hope that there are more of me that are not eco-nuts as well. But, if it takes the kooks to get things rolling then, at least, perhaps they have done something useful.
I could get behind taxing emissions but I would worry about how it would impact the impoverished. While they might be exempted from a number of taxes they would almost certainly be affected due to externalities as costs for most everything will increase. Cap and trade is, I feel, a shell game - at best. It is more likely to be some abused industry that preys on people and lives off the government's teat by virtue of being a mandate. I mean, yeah, it sounds like a good idea but let's be honest for a minute and think about how it will likely manifest in the real world.
No, I do not have solutions for this. I have some ideas but they are not important as nobody ever listens to me. I do not expect that to change.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Speaking of Trump, I'd like to see how he deals with Putin.
Probably better than Obama or Bush did...
Why exactly do we care about Crimea when most of Europe doesn't appear to care that much? And why is it our business?
If we sent troops into Mexico to deal with the drug cartels, what would be the American public's response if Russia cried fowl? We'd probably tell Russia to butt out, this is our side of the world and our concern and none of their business.
Well, why is everyone shocked when Russia feels the same way about the US and a country that is right next to them and far, far away from us?
I don't have your faith in the "well running market", but I generally agree with your approach.
I don't have "faith" in markets be perfect. In fact I think I said " We don't ever get that perfect market, but we should be striving for that."
Unfortunately, I know of no way to accomplish this. E.g., regulatory capture is an unsolved problem, because those in power don't *want* it solved.
I don't claim that a a solution to this problem exists. All I am claiming is that the economic problems are not hard, and economists on either side of the left/right keynes/austrian divide could probably agree on solutions that are better than what we have.
The solution I can see to regulatory capture is a more informed electorate, although I don't see how we get to that. But I don't see any solution that doesn't involve a more informed electorate.
The types of charitable giving that I typically do are for those that can not do for themselves - like disaster relief, the FSF, or others that enable people to do things on their own, such as Heifer International and I sponsor a scholarship program at Kent's Hill. Things like that... I wonder what his donations look like in that area. Those sorts of things speak volumes.
Keep in mind that, for now, I can not think of any particular thing that Trump has said that I intrinsically disagree with - nothing totally false and unacceptable. The same is not true with Hillary, in my opinion. I can not, and will not, vote for her. For now, I am entirely undecided but it is still unlikely that he will get my vote - there is likely to be a candidate more in line with my particular desires. I am not altruistic - I will not be voting for the general good of society, I will be voting for the party most likely to benefit me because I am a greedy and egotistical asshole.
I suppose, I should also make it clear, that I am a leftist but not in a traditional sense. I support the idea of a strong social safety net and providing for those who can not or will not do so on their own. Why? It helps stop them from stealing my shit. I like my shit - that is why I bought it. I am a greedy bastard. I support the idea of roads, libraries, police forces, and firefighters. They enable people to be productive. Their productivity is something I can capitalize on. I want everybody to create wealth - so I can have it. The leftists just have not realized I am a mole...
If I can not vote for someone who is going to make me money then I am going to vote for someone who will at least let me keep it. I do not mind taxes - not at all. I wish they were better spent but, frankly, taxes are less than I would pay to have a private company provide all the services I want. Those taxes are actually an investment - they do stuff like help me keep my shit. I already mentioned how much I love my shit - that is why I bought it in the first place. I am an asshole but I am honest about it. Anyone who can realistically show that they have a plan that enables me to be more productive (and acquire more shit) has my vote. That may be Trump. It sure as hell is not Hillary. It probably is not Sanders - he has some blanks to fill in. It might be Rand Paul but i worry that he is just riding his father's coattails. It will most certainly not be Bush.
I will be voting for myself. I am running for state Senate in Maine. We have lumped the Independent and Greens together here so I am an Independent/Green candidate. The signatures are already submitted. I am funding my campaign entirely on my own. I will accept not one single donation - not even from citizens. I am beholden to nobody and my choices are my own but will do my level best to represent the needs and desires of my constituents. My job will be to fairly represent them as honestly and openly as possible. I want to help them accumulate more shit. That way, I can find a way to get some of it. Besides, it will stop them from stealing *my* shit if they have enough of their own and have means to be productive to earn their own.
I suppose, I am the rare breed that is truly independent. I am likely to win my seat. My district has a habit of voting out incumbents and electing third party candidates. The guy who is currently in office is *scratches that out*... The guy is disliked by a majority if people are being honest with me. I do have self-interest in mind, I will be advocating for a Geek Appreciation Week where IT workers get an extra paid week off. *nods* (No, not really.) My entire platform is, pretty much, here is a list of everything I have done wrong. On the back of that paper you will find what I have learned from each of those mistakes and how it has changed my outlook.
If you want to vote or me and do not live in Maine, I can take care of that. I will get you an absentee ballot. You want a ballot? I will get you one. No, no... Again, I kid... I can see some LSJ reporter digging through
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Bernie v Paul v Trump would be interesting and eventful if Paul pulled enough in from either side of the electorate to keep from drowning one or the other parties. Rand could do the staunch Classic Libertarian (not Ayn Rand or anarcho-capitalist) thing and, maybe, get enough visibility.
The Libertarian Party has some issues... It has been co-opted by folks who are ashamed Republicans and they are a vocal minority. It is associated with Ayn Rand. The actual platform ideals do not fit on a bumper sticker or make good talking points for thirty-second blurbs. This is a problem.
I typed you out a novella, by the way, in another section. You may find it amusing. I did not proofread it, caveat emptor.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Deportation are up under Obama.
As for "creating legal jobs" that's a talking point not a policy, are you sure he didn't pledge to cut taxes, raise spending, and reduce the deficit at the same time?
He does know how to create jobs, unlike everyone else running.
He knows how to run a company, completely different than macroeconomics needed to create jobs.
BTW, if you actually did kick out most of the illegals, you'd also solve the min wage issue. Right now we have lots of supply of unskilled labor and not enough demand for it, which is why wages haven't moved. Get rid of some of the labor supply and the price of it will go up, wages rise.
I thought it was supposed to be because those marginal workers weren't productive enough, and the cheap labour was essential for the economy. Because I'm sure he'd use those arguments against the minimum wage hike.
I stole this Sig
Well Obama did achieve health care reform
Meh, in some ways yes... but look at how it was done... with a midnight vote and tricks...
It couldn't have been done a week before or a week after...
That isn't bringing everyone together, that is divisive.
It also isn't very good health care reform, but that won't be clear and obvious to the masses until after Obama is out of office. Those of us who see it from the inside know it won't work long term.
It was also a Republican policy full of Republican amendments, it was divisive because they acted like it was.
I stole this Sig
Also, considering that Trump has pissed off just about everyone on both sides of the aisle, exactly how does that improve the situation in Washington?
If after the election, he wins, and both sides of the isle takes it personally, then they have no business sitting at the grown up table.
It isn't personal, it's just business. Once elected, he can sit down with them both and start to get some business done. If their poor little feelings are hurt by what was said during the election, then they should run home to mommy and not be in leadership positions.
The types of charitable giving that I typically do are for those that can not do for themselves - like disaster relief, the FSF, or others that enable people to do things on their own, such as Heifer International and I sponsor a scholarship program at Kent's Hill. Things like that... I wonder what his donations look like in that area. Those sorts of things speak volumes.
He donated $1 million dollars to the 50th anniversary Veterans Day Parade in NYC... Which is nice that he "stands by the vets", but a more cynical view is that it was self promotion since he was the grand marshal. Of course, in fairness, anyone who donates $1 million to NYC for the parade can be grand marshal as far as I'm concerned. :)
Keep in mind that, for now, I can not think of any particular thing that Trump has said that I intrinsically disagree with - nothing totally false and unacceptable. The same is not true with Hillary, in my opinion. I can not, and will not, vote for her. For now, I am entirely undecided but it is still unlikely that he will get my vote
Frankly, I'll be shocked if he gets the nomination... anything is possible, but the powers that be don't want it and right now he is riding a wave of "anything but Clinton/Bush".
Will it last? We shall see, but it is a long time until Nov 2016 either way.
I typed you out a novella, by the way, in another section. You may find it amusing. I did not proofread it, caveat emptor.
I did read it, and I wish you luck with your run for office...
If you haven't held office before, I expect it will be a heck of a learning experience. :)
Trump has never held office, which is both a good and a bad thing. There is something to be said for having some experience first, but then he has lots of experience. He didn't clean toilets for 50 years, he did a lot of stuff, some of it good, some of it bad.
I actually respect the fact that he doesn't apologize for his mistakes. He could be a little less brash about it sometimes, but it is who he is. He has done it for way too long to have it be an act.
The other thing I like is that he hasn't spent his life running for office. He has said some things in just the past 5 years that NO politician would ever say to a camera.
I thought it was supposed to be because those marginal workers weren't productive enough, and the cheap labour was essential for the economy.
Nope, it is just supply and demand. Those market forces work the world over, regardless of what type of government you have or what you want to call your economic system.
The cheap labor isn't essential, if it costs more to have my grass mowed, then perhaps I'll get off my butt and mow it myself, which would be good for me.
Or perhaps I'll just pay more to have it mowed and the person I'm paying will now have more money to spend in the economy.
We're all better off both ways.
Too much cheap labor is bad, even for someone like me who enjoys cheap labor (I've employed hundreds of people over the past 20 years, while I like cheap wages, I also like customers who can pay for my services).
But no one cares, because they aren't being told to care, because people are idiots and sheep
Don't wake up sheeple! You're so superior!
There is more in this world to care about than anyone is capable of caring about, and that, despite you're quite astonishing level of smugness includes you. Hunting an endangered species is an incredible level of asshatery and it's prefectly fine, good even to care. Wrecking coral reefs (which incidently you only know about because like other "sheeple" you've been told to care) is also an incredibly shitty thing to do.
But there's shitty thing going on all over the world and in far, far greater quantities than you are capable of caring about. Cherry picking a few doesn't make people stupid, it makes them human. You personally either care about a few too (which by your own judgement makes you a stupid sheep person) or care about nothing which by my judgement makes you a psycho.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
People were claiming in the 70s that we'd run out of oil by... now... yet we have more known reserves of oil today than we did in the 70s.
Given the state of the art of oil extraction techniques in the 70s, we ran out ages ago. Deepwater rigs of a type similar to the infamous Horizon were pretty much sci-fi in the 70s. What changed was we got better at getting oil out of very deep wells and with economic efficiency out of very poor quality sources like tar sands.
We also got better at finding it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
inorganic produce
Salt.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yep, all true, except perhaps for the lunatic part. You don't generally become worth billions of dollars by being a lunatic... unless there is a new use for that word I'm not familiar with.
No, you don't generaly get to be a billionaire by being an idiot. Smart and lunatic are not mutually exclusive. And he certainly qualifies as lunatic.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So... leading a very large company of many diverse people... is very different than leading a very large nation of many diverse people?
Yes. Completely utterly different.
If things go crap you can just declare bankruptcy and start a new company (something he's done a few times). That doesn't work with countries.
You can fire people in companies, you can't exile citizens who aren't productive enough.
The goal of a for-profit company is to make money for the shareholders at the expense of everything else. A country doesn't have shareholders. And the goal of running a country is just that, to run it. Any money is a means to an end not an end in itself.
Trump may well kick out half the illegals, then put the other half to work.
That fact that you or he think that's even possible indicates a massive disconnect with reality. But go on humour me: how precisely are you proposing to even find them all? Bonus points for a method of achieving this goal which manages to avoid illegally detaining and possibly deporting American citizens en masse by accident.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Solar can't provide power at night. Wind can't produce when there's no wind.
And your laptop can't run when it's not plugged in.
You never heard of batteries, did you?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The government could best encourage solar by streamlining regulations,
The biggest thing they could do is change the regulations on their subsidies, tax breaks, and the like to replace the requirement "installed by a licensed contractor" to "installed in conformance with the applicable electrical code, permitted and inspected where applicable". This would allow do-it-yourself installations, where done properly, to receive the same benefits as professional installations.
The price difference between a homeowner-installed and a contractor-installed system is typically larger than the subsidies. So the current programs amount to welfare for the government-approved contractors rather than the homeowners.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
PPOs and HMOs with limited networks also existed prior to the ACA.
and those networks also used to change, regularly, prior to the ACA.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Well those corals are sharp and point while Cecil was cute and fuzzy. Huge difference, my kid would never own a coral stuffed animal. Joking aside the one benefit of wall to wall Cecil coverage is that it has temporarily stopped the wall to wall Trump coverage.
Time to offend someone
say what you want, but nothing you just said was factual
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And let's all be honest here, she's only evil to you because she is on the democrat ticket.
No. I don't like her because she's got a history of lying her ass off to protect her political future (smearing and persecuting people who dared to point out her husband's inexcusably abusive behavior, for example - especially the women she pretends to champion), including pre-emptively making use of a private email server in her house specifically to be able to hide her correspondence from the oversight it would normally receive, and then cherry picking (years after leaving office!) the stuff that she grudgingly turned over (as header-stripped printed output) in order to be able to claim she was transparent. Everything about her bearing and her words on that and many other subjects conveys the story of a deliberate, purposeful liar on a sustained power trip that has netted her millions and millions of dollars through leverage of her public office while in office.
No, this isn't about her being a Democrat (though that's another thing to dislike - given that platform's full throated embrace of Nanny State sensibilities, racist identity politics, etc) - it's about her being a genuinely loathsome, untrustworthy, vindictive, and ethically slippery person at the personal, professional, and political levels. The reason so many democrats are backing Bernie isn't because they genuinely understand or embrace his loopy socialist world view - it's because he at least comes across as an honest human being. Hillary comes across (and has been repeatedly shown to actually BE) a regular and persistent liar.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yes it really does.
It means that it is foolish to think that new==better. New can be much worse and one should look at the actual choice and potential results of the choice and not just the novelty of the choice.
For example.
Let's try that new burger place? Results could be a good meal or a bad meal. The risk very low as are the benefits.
Let's elect Trump even when he is spouting crazy and frankly mean ideas off the top of his head.
I see no upside to this at all.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Do you have any documentation on this? Bush was only in office for 8 months when the attack happened. The first WTC bombing happened in 1993 so Clinton had 7 years to track down and stop Al-Qaeda.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
this is why privatization of essential services is completely idiotic.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The US probably have the largest and less fuel-efficient car fleet in the developed world. It also has the lowest gas taxes in the developed world. You think it's a coincidence?
I think the market could decide but that it would not be quick enough if we really want to change things in a timely fashion.
That's why we call it a market failure.
the city itself probably "saves" a lot on its balance sheet.
what people miss though is all the hidden costs, like the guy who now lost his house, or now has a huge debt load from a lien against it, all of which sucks strength out of the local economy and leaves the local citizens worse off. which is why ultimately it doesn't work, contrary to the supporters of it, even if it gives the appearance of doing so; the decay is rot is hidden, and people are left worse off as a whole by this idiotic tendency to privatize essential services.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
that is the definition of the deficit: the difference between revenue and expenditures.
you're thinking of the national debt.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
not even that fringe.
the majority of americans support his positions.
the only things in the way are a) American stupidity regarding the word "socialist" and b) the media's refusal to acknowledge him, treating him like a minor candidate even as he grows in stature (he's a bigger threat to Hillary than any GOP candidate)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No it wont create lots of unemployment. CBO estimate was 0 to 1million possibly lost jobs; they cant pin it down because there is STILL no definitive link between MW increases and unemployment. and then there's the 19+ million people lifted out of poverty, and all the buying power and economic growth that comes with that. there is no valid economic reason that requires an economy to have people working for so little that they would be starving in the streets if not for public assistance. none.
And no, kicking out the undocumented immigrants wouldn't shore up the economy. (just like most everything else you've posted, youre wrong on this too)
it would actually cause a pretty large shrinkage in the economy triggering another recession. they contribute some 80 billion to the economy and nearly 10 billion to state and local taxes yearly. roughly 10% of the current social security trust fund, some 300 billion dollars, has been contributed by them, money they can never get back themselves due to their status. kick them all out? no. make them citizens.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You have valid concerns. However my point was the service itself. Why would a private fire department buy a new truck? Who is evaluating if they have the manpower to offer a good enough service? Why would they invest in training? What stops them from selling half of their fleet after a few years, without anybody noticing? The worse that will happen is that there will be an house burning, they will go on site, try to extinguish, fail for some reason, and then say to the owner "there is nothing else we could do, sorry". How does the owner know he got the service he paid for?
I do agree that the part I quoted was not factual. That's why I refuted it.
Please, save your breath... and the projection. Singling her out will get you nowhere. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and all your present day candidates in the GOP are big liars (and bigots) too, but you can't find enough deference to treat them.. You are just showing pure partisanship all the way down. And Sanders, as good as his platform is, is just a sheepdog to keep the hippie money in the party. Hillary is the best republican out there. Even the GOP is starting to show a little embarrassment over the candidates you people are voting for...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
On residential streets, 'better than the shitty drivers' is still a dream for Google engineers. Highways are easy, residential is difficult.
Absent a major breakthrough in AI AND a couple more decades of Moore's law, fully automated cars won't be legal on the streets, in the lifetime of all /.ers reading.
If and when they do become legal they will be ubiquitous because people will never learn to be good drivers. They will never get their first 1000 hours in control.
Taxi's/Rental cars don't get loss of revenue, because it is known that the vehicles are INXS, the limit is passengers. Fleets are simply expected to keep a reserve.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"Plans that charge more than they pay out are not legitimate."
Obama plans does the exact opposite, pays out more than it charges! YAY Socialism!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You missed the SCOTUS ruling. The only way the whole of ObamaCare is legal, is if it is a tax. Therefore it is a tax. I don't care what the IRS says, I care what the SCOTUS says. And so should you.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"Let's parse it for what you really mean--only those that had health insurance, not the millions that had jobs but no health insurance."
Lets give everyone a house, car, free food water .... MILLIONS of people can't afford these things too.
Socialism.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You're viewing this much too short term. You are looking at the effects to date. YES the insurance companies love ObamaCare, but it is short sighted love. Healthcare under ObamaCare is making things much much worse, and much more expensive. WE are still at the front end of this thing, we haven't even begun to seen the long term problems that will come from it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Try this:
Clinton warned Bush about Al-Qaeda
Let's elect Trump even when he is spouting crazy and frankly mean ideas off the top of his head. I see no upside to this at all.
Of course you don't see an upside, because you've already decided his ideas are crazy.
I wouldn't see an upside to it either if I thought he was crazy.
He isn't crazy, but clearly has a different world view than you do, and he is just a bit blunt in his speech about it.
And no, kicking out the undocumented immigrants wouldn't shore up the economy. (just like most everything else you've posted, youre wrong on this too)
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think you have this one completely backwards...
You appear to not understand the concept of supply and demand. You might want to learn about it.
it would actually cause a pretty large shrinkage in the economy triggering another recession. they contribute some 80 billion to the economy and nearly 10 billion to state and local taxes yearly. roughly 10% of the current social security trust fund, some 300 billion dollars, has been contributed by them, money they can never get back themselves due to their status. kick them all out? no. make them citizens.
Nope, you're wrong again.
Kicking them out would just give those jobs to unemployed Americans at a higher rate of pay, who would then pay MORE to the SS trust fund.
The jobs don't disappear because you kick them out, they go to people who now get paid more.
We're all better off.
This is basic economics 101.
Healthcare under ObamaCare is making things much much worse, and much more expensive.
The increase in health care costs are no worse than they were before the ACA passed. This is, of course, because the system is not dramatically different than it was before. Previously, profit for the insurance industry was guaranteed by contract, now profit is guaranteed by law.
Furthermore, look at who in Washington DC is on the payroll of the insurance industry. The majority of our elected officials - of both parties - are receiving sizeable paychecks from the insurance industry. They would be putting their own careers in jeopardy if they were to do anything other than guarantee the continued existence of the insurance industry.
In short, there is no hope for national single payer for at least the next 20 years.
You can talk about conspiracies relating to
the long term problems that will come from [the ACA]
But the reality is that it does not lead to single payer, and the insurance industry has ensured that to be the case for the foreseeable future.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
*insurance company charges $1000/yr for a cheap plan
*plan covers nothing, has maximum payout of $300/yr
*ACA bans such scam plans
*cue wingnut outrage over losing their "plan"
If that is what you really think, then there is nothing further to discuss with you.
It is a shame that you're so close minded...
Joking aside the one benefit of wall to wall Cecil coverage is that it has temporarily stopped the wall to wall Trump coverage.
Yep, and do you think that was an accident?
The media really, really doesn't want to talk about Trump... Which makes me like him all the more, since the media is biased and has their own agenda...
Because before ACA, insurance prices were so low to begin with. Not!
Look, let me be crystal here:
Solar prices have plummetted. Both passive and active.
Wind price have plummetted.
Battery prices have plummetted.
It's obvious you're stuck in the 70s Reagan myths.
It's 2015. Not 1975. The world - and energy capital costs - have changed dramatically.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This statement makes no sense. Had they been actively involved in extinguishing the (uninsured) house, they would've been even less available for other engagements.
That's called fraud — a criminal act. Do you think, various criminals haven't tried this before? They have and still do, are you going to nationalize all insurance business because of this?
You'd be liable to much more than that — in addition to the above-mentioned criminal prosecution, you'd forfeit all the bonds you have posted and, of course, such a thing can only be tried once.
Most ordinary people might not have the attention span enough to track such fraudsters, but insurance companies do — and they will insist, you pick a fire-company from their "approved" list.
Not necessarily. That's entirely up to them. You have mentioned in your previous post, that you find cooperation between neighboring towns' fireteams possible (and desirable). What makes you think, private players would be unable to cooperate with each other?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This statement makes no sense. Had they been actively involved in extinguishing the (uninsured) house, they would've been even less available for other engagements.
Having them working is efficient. Having them sitting in front of a burning house isn't.
That's called fraud — a criminal act. Do you think, various criminals haven't tried this before? They have and still do [insurancefraud.org], are you going to nationalize all insurance business because of this?
Of course it wouldn't be a fraud. I would have 1-2 employees and a single truck. They would do their best to save the burning house, but they would fail every time.
but insurance companies do — and they will insist, you pick a fire-company from their "approved" list.
Sounds like another bureaucratic non-sense. So you are saying that insurance is more expensive to cover for the fees in order for them to evaluate and approve private fire departments?
Not necessarily. That's entirely up to them. You have mentioned in your previous post, that you find cooperation between neighboring towns' fireteams possible (and desirable). What makes you think, private players would be unable to cooperate with each other?
I am sure they could. My point was just that the city shouldn't be providing a private corporation with free land and free water.
Having them sit in front of their cute "fire house" all day is even more inefficient.
And that's what happens, when they are government employees — because each town has its own. The same would be happening, if each town ran its own restaurants — fortunately, the statism has not reached quite that far in this country.
Now you are changing your argument — glad to see, we have the earlier one discarded.
Let's dispense with this new one. Service-providers, that oversell their capacity do not survive for very long either. Customers and insurers track them... Unless, of course, they are government-owned — the "trick" you described can be (and is) used by government-run fire-teams all the time. A mean annual wage of a New York City firefighter, for example, is over $73K, but they will refuse to even try to save your property, under the noble-sounding rule "We only save lives".
Somebody has to evaluate and approve all fire departments — whether they are monitored by the towns or insurance companies, it needs to be done on occasion. But insurance companies compete with each other and have "skin in the game" — their policies will be too expensive, if they aren't efficient about inspections. If, on the other hand, they are too loose in their standards, they'll lose money paying for houses destroyed by fires.
Town representatives do not have "skin in the game" and are swayed by personal sympathies if not outright bribery, which makes the system less efficient.
Maybe not. Something can be worked-out — after all, we do have private companies running cables (and even pipes) above and under the streets. Any resource available to government-owned firefighters ought to be — and is — available to privately-operated ones.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Service-providers, that oversell their capacity do not survive for very long either
We are not talking about an ISP or any other service you use often. As a client of a private fire department, how do I know if they oversell their capacity or not? I don't. I need to trust them.
Unless, of course, they are government-owned — the "trick" you described can be (and is) used by government-run fire-teams all the time. A mean annual wage of a New York City firefighter, for example, is over $73K [bls.gov], but they will refuse to even try to save your property, under the noble-sounding rule "We only save lives"
Well I am glad their goal is to save lives first. I would be pissed if a private fire department ever left someone to die while making sure the neighboring empty house didn't catch fire.
Somebody has to evaluate and approve all fire departments
It's a lot mot effective to have a single entity evaluating a single fire department, than multiple insurance companies each evaluating multiple fire departments.
Also insurance companies only care about damage loss. Since we are talking about companies insuring houses (and not lifes), why would they care about the ability of private fire departments to save kids' lifes?
Maybe not. Something can be worked-out — after all, we do have private companies running cables (and even pipes [wikipedia.org]) above and under the streets. Any resource available to government-owned firefighters ought to be — and is — available to privately-operated ones.
The public fire hydrant system is efficient, because it rely on a single public free water distribution system.
Any fire department having to deploy its own water distribution system would have to charge you a lot more than if it were allowed to use the public one.
For the record: There are a very few remaining swamps that are putting down future coal. The Okifanoki is one.
We can't possibly burn all the coal. Not even all the high grade coal, to say nothing of brown coal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's not what I think, it's what actually happened to over 20,000 plans in Florida alone. There is no discussion to be had about it.
Nor is it in anyway mark some sort of close-mindedness on my part, it being a simple statement of something that actually happened, with (stupid) people then going out and saying "it's my right to be scammed"....
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
We can't possibly burn all the coal. Not even all the high grade coal, to say nothing of brown coal.
Wouldn't this still be true even if 0 coal was being replenished?
Yes, but by the threads definition it doesn't matter.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
OK, I am just trying to clear up what is being claimed. I found it to be a bit misleading to say "The rate of X is high enough for Y to be true", only to find out that what was actually being claimed is that Y would be true regardless of the rate of X (or at least as long as X isn't a very large negative number).
You're living in a world devoid from reality if you believe what politicians are SAYING instead of finding out what they're really DOING;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
Try 2000, as that's the year when I was actively pricing solar panels. Battery backup was then grossly unaffordable, if you could get a decent grid connection.
Now maybe battery prices have plummeted, but if so I haven't noticed, except for things intended for cell phones, etc. Lithium and other high end batteries have, indeed, dropped in price, but that's not what you want for a backup to a "grid replacement" power system.
OTOH, yes, solar panel prices, and the prices on the associated electronics have plummeted. But you need sufficient battery backup, and that can double the price of your system. (Or it could in 2000. Given the way prices have been changing I'd expect it to be closer to tripling the cost. For a home user. As you get larger there are better options up to the scale of a small town. Once you get above that level, backup becomes more expensive again unless you use the grid.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
2000? That's ages. Solar is cheaper than oil, and even cheaper than coal now.
Are you still running Windows 95? Or have you upgraded to Win2K yet?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'm not sure you can call them identical...
They are all identical when it comes to not rocking the fundamental power structures in the world. Military industrial complex, Wall Street, etc..
Personally I won't have anything to do with MSWind after reading the EULA on the 2000 edition. There's still one computer in the house with MSWind95 on it, and an old Mac (10.3...the edition where *they* started using an unacceptable EULA). The Mac hasn't even been powered up in the last year or so, but has some files I'd rather not lose, but which are in proprietary formats. The active computers are Linux.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.