*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 illegal to dump toxic industrial waste in your back yard.
Should you be able to pay any amount of money to be able to do that legally? To compensate society for the damage?
Let me put this another way:
Right at the other end of the scale you have incandescent light bulbs, which waste a lot of energy compared to CCFL and LED, and even halogen, and thus generate more pollution from electricity generation.
Ok, fair enough... What if each bulb came with a $5 tax that went into a clean energy fund that helped pay for wind and solar?
There are in fact applications where incandescent are useful. Not many, but some. And some people just prefer them.
I think very, very little should ever be banned. Drugs for example, make them legal and tax the crap out of them. Banning alcohol didn't work, the war on drugs hasn't worked either.
Right now, you can get incandescent cheap from Mexico, they are for sale on Amazon for pete's sake. The "ban" has just created a black market. Or in this case, a gray market, since their new production is banned, but not their sale. But even if you banned their sale, you could still get them.
So where is the line? How much pollution, how far away from populated areas, what kind of health damage is acceptable?
I actually think you should be allowed to pollute, to some extent, as much as you want, so long as you can pay for it. If you can compensate society for the damage, and perhaps then some, have at it.
Of course the idea is not to promote pollution, it is to make it more expensive than being green, to put a "bill from society" for the damage. For example, I think the gas tax in the US is way too low and doesn't reflex either the cost to maintain the roads or the cost to society for everyone burning tons of it. How many conservative Republicans do you know who say that we should triple the gas tax?
Banning things is generally (but not always) a bad idea, IMHO.
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.
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).
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.
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 was going to ask you where you were getting led's so cheaply. But I checked the math first.
I can get one 65w equivalent led bulb for $7.84 or I can get four 65w bulbs for $7.88.
Amazon had a deal of the day a month or so back offering 60w LED bulbs for $5 each delivered.
So I bought 30 of them. I've since bought more at about $6 each.
I don't pay 10 cents a kWh, I pay less than 7 cents, but even at that price, they make sense.
I also have some lights that are on 12 hours a day, do that math there and it becomes a complete no brainer.
I could have just done the high use lights, but frankly, the economics are so in favor of it that I did them all, even the closet lights where it makes less sense.
the newer led bulbs are a near perfect match to the incandescent bulbs
They are... I had some CFLs and frankly they suck. The LEDs are much, much nicer... I've even replaced the CFLs and that is a far less interesting economic situation, but I consider the superior light and lack of hum from the LEDs to be worth it.
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.
I don't know if that second link will work, but give it a try, it is a link to a PDF EFL (Electricty Facts Label).
The price of the energy is 3.72 cents per kWh and the price of the delivery (transmission) is 3.24 cents per kWh. There are two monthly charges, $14.95 from the power generation company and $8.65 from the power delivery company and a $25 credit for any month I go over 1,000 kWh (which is every month).
If I were to use 4,000 kWh, my monthly bill will be about $277. It might end up being another $10-15 more once the local city tosses a tax or two on there, but those are usually no more than $15, give or take.
So it is less than 7 cents per kWh total. That is insanely cheap and it is why solar makes NO sense for me...
You've heard of 1st world problems? This worry about sea level rise is the extreme form of that. They already feel it, even though they havent been displaced and need to be told by someone else that its even happening. And its more important that what we do about it feels like a solution rather than is a solution.
BUT, if you run the numbers, you will see that we NEED nukes.
Yep, and we need to build them in the US... We could create a wonderful nuclear revival industry and export them around the world, if only we could get over the irrational, "oh my god the nuclears!" fears of people.
Wind and solar can be part of the solution, that is wonderful. A combined nuclear, wind, solar, hydro power grid that maybe keeps 5-10% natural gas as backups strikes me as a reasonable plan.
But the far left doesn't want to hear it and the far right is so busy defending coal that they can't hear it either...
29.85 cents per kWh? Ouch, you're getting killed there...
At that price, I'd install solar tomorrow, it would make total sense!
I also don't have time of day use pricing, my price is the same 24/7. It helps that I'm sitting in the middle of a thousand oil and natural gas wells, power is very cheap in Texas because of that.
The irony is that we produce 9% of our state power in Wind and also make more power from wind than any other state in the US. Solar is a very, very small number here however, token really.
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?
And the coal plants don't pay for all that damage. We do, you and I, in our taxes and our health insurance and our health problems which are made worse by coal. So yeah, solar doesn't make economic sense if you are looking at "this year" or "this decade", but it makes a hell of a lot of economic sense if you care about the longer term: "your kid's economy" or "your kids health" or "your old age". The damage is done to my body, but I don't see why I should inflict that same damage on my grandkids.
^ And this is why Warren Buffet doesn't write a check to the government, while at the same time he argues for more taxes on the wealthy.
Because his actions, by himself, don't make a difference.
You and I could put solar up, but that doesn't make any difference. (ok, yea, it makes a MINOR difference, but not one large enough to matter)
We need MILLIONS of people to do it. The only way to do that is to tax coal.
I can afford to put up solar, but I won't do it until I'm paying a lot more for power.
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.
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!":)
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'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.
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 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.
Slashdot Mirror
*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...
"we cant stop it, so screw it, lets burn the MFer down and go out with a bang"
Cute reply, but you miss the point.
The money spent to make the changes proposed would likely be better used to adapt and adjust to the coming changes, whatever they are.
The problem is what Obama proposes won't actually do anything, it won't change the outcome by enough to matter, the ship still sinks.
I'm all for solutions, but if you don't have one that plugs the hole in the ship, then you're just making noise and not helping.
If the ship is going to sink, then accept it and move on. Get ready for the changes that will come, rather than fight them pointlessly.
It is illegal to dump toxic industrial waste in your back yard.
Should you be able to pay any amount of money to be able to do that legally? To compensate society for the damage?
Let me put this another way:
Right at the other end of the scale you have incandescent light bulbs, which waste a lot of energy compared to CCFL and LED, and even halogen, and thus generate more pollution from electricity generation.
Ok, fair enough... What if each bulb came with a $5 tax that went into a clean energy fund that helped pay for wind and solar?
There are in fact applications where incandescent are useful. Not many, but some. And some people just prefer them.
I think very, very little should ever be banned. Drugs for example, make them legal and tax the crap out of them. Banning alcohol didn't work, the war on drugs hasn't worked either.
Right now, you can get incandescent cheap from Mexico, they are for sale on Amazon for pete's sake. The "ban" has just created a black market. Or in this case, a gray market, since their new production is banned, but not their sale. But even if you banned their sale, you could still get them.
So where is the line? How much pollution, how far away from populated areas, what kind of health damage is acceptable?
I actually think you should be allowed to pollute, to some extent, as much as you want, so long as you can pay for it. If you can compensate society for the damage, and perhaps then some, have at it.
Of course the idea is not to promote pollution, it is to make it more expensive than being green, to put a "bill from society" for the damage. For example, I think the gas tax in the US is way too low and doesn't reflex either the cost to maintain the roads or the cost to society for everyone burning tons of it. How many conservative Republicans do you know who say that we should triple the gas tax?
Banning things is generally (but not always) a bad idea, IMHO.
Yeah, things went so well the last time Apple licensed its OS.
Yes, but that was another time...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 was going to ask you where you were getting led's so cheaply.
But I checked the math first.
I can get one 65w equivalent led bulb for $7.84 or I can get four 65w bulbs for $7.88.
Amazon had a deal of the day a month or so back offering 60w LED bulbs for $5 each delivered.
So I bought 30 of them. I've since bought more at about $6 each.
I don't pay 10 cents a kWh, I pay less than 7 cents, but even at that price, they make sense.
I also have some lights that are on 12 hours a day, do that math there and it becomes a complete no brainer.
I could have just done the high use lights, but frankly, the economics are so in favor of it that I did them all, even the closet lights where it makes less sense.
the newer led bulbs are a near perfect match to the incandescent bulbs
They are... I had some CFLs and frankly they suck. The LEDs are much, much nicer... I've even replaced the CFLs and that is a far less interesting economic situation, but I consider the superior light and lack of hum from the LEDs to be worth it.
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.
Does that 6.8 cents include the transmission line costs or no ? If it does where in Texas you living ?
Yes, it does...
It is from Gexa Energy...
You can go to Powertochoose.org
Put in my zip code of 75057, pick Texas-New Mexico PDC, sort by "more than 2,000 kWh", and you should see it third down the list.
http://www.gexaenergy.com/UI/H...|1640|1005|16311
I don't know if that second link will work, but give it a try, it is a link to a PDF EFL (Electricty Facts Label).
The price of the energy is 3.72 cents per kWh and the price of the delivery (transmission) is 3.24 cents per kWh. There are two monthly charges, $14.95 from the power generation company and $8.65 from the power delivery company and a $25 credit for any month I go over 1,000 kWh (which is every month).
If I were to use 4,000 kWh, my monthly bill will be about $277. It might end up being another $10-15 more once the local city tosses a tax or two on there, but those are usually no more than $15, give or take.
So it is less than 7 cents per kWh total. That is insanely cheap and it is why solar makes NO sense for me...
You've heard of 1st world problems? This worry about sea level rise is the extreme form of that. They already feel it, even though they havent been displaced and need to be told by someone else that its even happening. And its more important that what we do about it feels like a solution rather than is a solution.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. :)
BUT, if you run the numbers, you will see that we NEED nukes.
Yep, and we need to build them in the US... We could create a wonderful nuclear revival industry and export them around the world, if only we could get over the irrational, "oh my god the nuclears!" fears of people.
Wind and solar can be part of the solution, that is wonderful. A combined nuclear, wind, solar, hydro power grid that maybe keeps 5-10% natural gas as backups strikes me as a reasonable plan.
But the far left doesn't want to hear it and the far right is so busy defending coal that they can't hear it either...
29.85 cents per kWh? Ouch, you're getting killed there...
At that price, I'd install solar tomorrow, it would make total sense!
I also don't have time of day use pricing, my price is the same 24/7. It helps that I'm sitting in the middle of a thousand oil and natural gas wells, power is very cheap in Texas because of that.
The irony is that we produce 9% of our state power in Wind and also make more power from wind than any other state in the US. Solar is a very, very small number here however, token really.
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?
And the coal plants don't pay for all that damage. We do, you and I, in our taxes and our health insurance and our health problems which are made worse by coal. So yeah, solar doesn't make economic sense if you are looking at "this year" or "this decade", but it makes a hell of a lot of economic sense if you care about the longer term: "your kid's economy" or "your kids health" or "your old age". The damage is done to my body, but I don't see why I should inflict that same damage on my grandkids.
^ And this is why Warren Buffet doesn't write a check to the government, while at the same time he argues for more taxes on the wealthy.
Because his actions, by himself, don't make a difference.
You and I could put solar up, but that doesn't make any difference. (ok, yea, it makes a MINOR difference, but not one large enough to matter)
We need MILLIONS of people to do it. The only way to do that is to tax coal.
I can afford to put up solar, but I won't do it until I'm paying a lot more for power.
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.
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!" :)
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'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.
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.
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 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.
sorry, but wind is cheaper than coal, and with the next iteration of wind generators, they should be cheaper than nat gas.
Maybe, maybe not... but if I can't buy it for less, then it isn't cheaper right now...
When power providers start selling wind for less than natural gas and coal power, then it will be true...