Clinton lied under oath about a material fact in a case rather than let Paula Jones have justice. Justice, by the way, that was owed to her according to American law. That same law that Clinton swore to execute. Do you know what Jones asked for as a pre-trial settlement? An apology. No money, no resignation, no gifts, no promotions. All Clinton would have had to do to satisfy Ms. Jones's demands was to sign and send her a written apology for what he did to her in that hotel room. In the scheme of things--President Clinton was impeached for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.
Articles of Impeachment for Obstruction of Justice had also passed committee against President Nixon. The other pending articles were Abuse of Power and Contempt of Congress. Sound familiar? Do you know what I hear you saying? It's okay when our guys do it.
While he kind of comes off as an ass for ignoring the obvious lesson from political history and the horrible injustice of it all, I have to stand up for him FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. I'm a little funny about the truth.
By contrast, I think you're probably an upstanding person, and someone with whom I could enjoy a beer or three. My treat. Assuming we can work out the logistics. And assuming you're willing to drink with an ass.
In other words, the first count was for lying about a bj
The first count was not about lying about a bj. In fact President Clinton went on national television and stated, "I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Were you aware that he was not impeached for doing that? The reason that he wasn't impeached for that is because it's probably not an impeachable offense. The impeachment was for lying about a material fact while under oath. In other words: Perjury. The president was impeached for perjury. The president was not impeached for lying about a bj.
and the second was for asking someone to back up his lie about a bj.
The second count was not for asking someone to back up his lie about a bj. In that same television appearance President Clinton also stated, "I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never." Again, probably not an impeachable offense. The impeachment was for going to his secretary, after he was specifically instructed by the judge not to speak with anyone involved in the case about it, and trying to influence her testimony and get her help hiding the box of gifts. The president was impeached for obstruction of justice. The president was not impeached for asking someone to back up his lie about a bj.
THAT'S RIGHT. There's a list somewhere of all the lies you can tell under oath.
I would like to see it. Where can I find it?
If the judge asks me, "Do you like me? Do you like being here" I will look him in the eye and say "Sure I like you. There might be other places I'd rather be, but I like being here and given a chance to defend myself against charges of wrongdoing." Is that true: obviously not. Obviously I wouldn't like the judge, and would not like being there.
The judge wouldn't ask you any such question. Things are handled differently in civil and criminal trials, and Jones v. Clinton was a civil trial. In those, the people asking the questions are either the plaintiff's attorneys or the defense attorneys. In this case the plaintiff's attorneys were working for Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones's attorneys asked President Clinton whether he had ever had intimate relations with any subordinate. President Clinton was the defendant. At that point the defense attorneys had the opportunity to object to the question. Objections to questions have to be of particular types. Valid types of objections include ambiguous, argumentative, asked and answered, assumes facts not in evidence, badgering, best evidence rule, and others. The the judge rules that the witness doesn't have to answer the question by saying "sustained", or rules that he does by saying "overruled". One of two things happened. Either President Clinton's attorneys didn't object to the question, or the judge overruled whatever objections they voiced. That means that President Clinton was legally obligated to answer the question.
But I don't have to say that, because it is literally on the list somewhere.
You have to answer if the judge says you do.
I thought this would be obvious. Would you deny the above?
your story doesn't make sense. why would he be telling a judge if he has had intimate relations with any person who was subordinate to him?
It happened because someone, probably Hillary Clinton, attempted to destroy the reputation of Paula Jones. Ms. Jones brought suit against President Clinton for violation of her civil rights. She claimed that, as governor, she had her brought to his hotel room, dropped his pants, and told her to "kiss it". Ms. Jones attorneys attempted to bolster her claim by proving that he had a history of sexual activity with women who were subordinate to him. President Clinton tried to rebut her claim by stating, under oath, that he had never had intimate activity with any such person.
If you are are being asked that question, you don't have to answer it, you can say whatever you want.
Normally that would be true. Not, however, when a judge has order you to answer under oath. Not when you have sworn to tell the truth.
Now, if he had been asked if he had raped a woman -- subordinate or otherwise -- that would be a different question. You can't tell a judge whatever you want about whether you raped someone.
What a curious statement! So, is there a list somewhere of all the lies you can tell under oath? Why would you even swear to tell the truth?
Obviously I am simplifying somewhat, but what you've written simply doesn't make any sense. It would be like a judge asking you, "Have you used your office to gain private influence or influence for after you're done with office?" Obviously you don't have to answer that. That's not even a question in the realm of anything anyone has to answer.
The only thing remotely similar to what you're saying that I can think of is material claims. A material claim is one that has a bearing on the case. In the Jones v. Clinton case whether President Clinton had a history of intimate activity with subordinates was a material claim. Now, something like your favorite cereal, assuming that the case didn't involve your favorite cereal, would not be a material claim, and you would not be guilty of perjury. President Clinton was guilty of perjury.
Clinton was impeached for an act that was of no consequence to the nation.
That's not true. The president is the head of the executive branch of the government. The job of the executive is to carry out the laws of the United States. Instead of seeing to it that the laws were carried out, President Clinton violated those laws and suborned others to do so as well. This is the same level of consequences if the judiciary were to find for whomever paid them the most bribe money.
Clinton got impeached for getting a bj from a fat chick,
That's not true. Clinton was impeached for two things, neither of which was the physical encounter with Monica Lewinsky. The first thing he was impeached for was Perjury before a Grand Jury. The act that spawned this article of impeachment was when he claimed under oath in Judge Susan Webber Wright's grand jury that he had never had intimate relations with any person who was subordinate to him. The second thing he was impeached for was Obstruction of Justice. That acts that spawned this article of impeachment was when he encouraged Lewinsky to file a false affidavit, when he encouraged her to lie under oath, when he plotted with his secretary to hide a box of gifts he had given to Lewinsky, when he attempted to get Lewinsky a job so that she would not provide truthful testimony, when he lied to White House staff, and when he allowed his attorney to make false statements on his behalf.
The problem is that it's a mandatory service that *SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT*.
Why? What I mean to ask is--why should that service be provided by government? What attribute or property is common to all such services that they should be provided through that means?
I mean--my first thought is that health care is really important. However, that thought doesn't survive even a cursory examination. For example, food. I mean--isn't food more important than health care insurance? If you had a stack of food in front of you and a health care professional, which would you choose? Well, if you just got out of a car accident then you might choose the health care professional, but I'm saying the vast majority of people would choose the food. And the guy from the accident might choose the food, too, if it was going to be the only thing he was going to get to eat for the next month. But most people wouldn't claim that government should provide food. And housing and clothing. A huge number of people have died from exposure. I would guess that more people have died from exposure than have died from other treatable conditions, but people don't say government should provide housing and food. And besides, together food, housing, and clothing take up about 85% of the average American's budget. Shoot, a few more important things and we can just say that government should provide for us from cradle to grave. From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.
I mean, I get defense. It's because defense is indivisible. If everyone in America got exemplary defense, then Loyal Opposition would get exemplary defense as well, because it's not possible for the government to let invading armies across the border just to get Mr. O. So, I get why government should provide defense. And I even get some medical care. I mean, if Typhoid Mary gets to exercise her right to work wherever she wishes (providing she can get someone to hire her) then all the other people get infected. So I see why government would want to either force her to take a cure or keep her from the food service industry.
No, you may not assume that since not enough information exists about their or my own political leanings.
You may be revealing more about your political leanings than you think you are.
This person truncated the information available and then stretched the truth to make some bullshit political statement about "how bad government subsidies are"
I assume by "this person" you mean dusanv. I'm a little confused by your complaint that he truncated the information available. What dusanv did was to provide a summary, and that's what a summary means--that you truncate the information available. There are lots of summaries on Slashdot. Every article is summarized. In fact, when a submitter does provide all the information available there are hordes of complaints levied at the submitter for doing so. I'm also confused by your complaint that he stretched the truth. To study it more I looked the word "subsidy" up on Wikipedia. There seemed to be two salient points. The first point was that it was money given by government to support a business or person. The money described in the article appears to meet every point of that definition. Wikipedia also says:
Indirect subsidy is a term sufficiently broad that it may cover most other forms of subsidy.[citation needed] The term would cover any form of subsidy that does not involve a direct transfer.
Would I be correct in stating that you became extremely angry because dusanv didn't say:
Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar energy firm, indirectly subsidized to the tune of $500 million and held as a 'gleaming example of green technology,' announced bankruptcy yesterday. 1,100 employees fired.
That seems a terribly minor point to become so upset over.
Finally, you infer that dusanv makes a claim that government subsidies are bad. Try as I might, I can't find anything of the sort. The most I can infer is that perhaps dusanv is claiming that Solyndra isn't a 'gleaming example of green technology.'
I really like how people pick and choose evidence rather than confront all of it and attempt to formulate objective opinions.
Yeah. I've noticed that happening, too. Recently. In fact, I've seen it really, really recently.
It's very unfortunate that the destructive libertarian argument that the government should stop spending money and let the private sector work it out seemingly has so much traction.
Really? I would have thought this example proves the exact opposite. Let me put it this way, if everything else had gone the same way it actually did except that the company survived and made lots of solar panels, wouldn't that have supported the idea that government spending in this case was a good idea? So given that the company failed I don't see how that could also support the same conclusion.
The guy that posted this article is a moron asshole.
May I assume that means that he has a political opinion opposite yours?
Not only is he actually stretching the truth, he is also using a false example to make some bullshit political point. This company didnt recieve subsidies, it was loans.
Strictly speaking, you're correct. Or nearly so. The company received loan guarantees. Then they borrowed $527 million against those guarantees. Then they filed bankruptcy (or will) so they wouldn't have to pay the loans. Now the government is on the hook for the $527 million. As someone else pointed out, the government may not be out the entire amount, as they can force the company to hold a fire sale and regain some of it. However, it's a safe bet that they won't get more than about ten cents on a dollar.
Furthermore, as you said, "An experimental business fails in a collapsing economy".
The President touted the federally back money as a way to create jobs.
It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.
That doesn't necessarily mean a subsidy. If the company went broke and never got the loans no government money was spent.
Strictly speaking you're correct; however, from one of the links of the linked article...
The company has borrowed $527 million of the $535 million covered by the Energy Department loan guarantee, Damien LaVera, a department spokesman, said in an e-mail.
It's very unfortunate that the destructive libertarian argument that the government should stop spending money and let the private sector work it out seemingly has so much traction.
That's strange, because it seems to me that this example proves the exact opposite--the government decided where to spend the money, how much money to spend, and when to spend it, and it was all wasted. Wouldn't that prove that the libertarians are right when they claim that government should stop?
Well, that wasn't my first thought. My first thought was that if they couldn't make a go of it with five hundred million dollars of subsidies then there would be no way they could make a go of it on a level playing field. It wasn't my second thought either. My second thought was that our government is surely incapable of picking winners. Similarly, with the third. My third thought was that I sold some scrap aluminum yesterday. It appears to me that they're able to make a go of it without subsidies. Maybe scrap aluminum isn't green? Nope, it's pretty green compared with smelting bauxite. Maybe it's an unfair comparison? Nope, manufacture of solar cells produces lots of waste.
How much the fresh air is worth to you?
Well, I've got plenty right now. I suppose I could use some more, though. I might be willing to pay a penny for a cubic mile. How much do you have?
To your children?
They are in the same boat as I am.
To your children's children?
They don't have any, so they wouldn't want any. But perhaps you're speaking metaphorically? Let's see...air is cleaner now than it was fifty years ago. Presumably, there will be more clean air when the grand kids come around. I don't know? Penny for a thousand cubic miles?
And what about fresh water?
Yeah, we're pretty well set for fresh water, too. I don't know...maybe if I had more fresh water I could water the lawn. What's the going rate? Let me buy one lawn worth of fresh water. But I'm not willing to pay the going rate! If I were then I would have watered it already. How about you give me a ninety percent discount?
What about cold weather?
I wouldn't give you a plugged nickle for all the cold weather in Antarctica.
I am not saying that all of those things should be worth more than 500 billion to everyone
That brings up a good point. Why is the government taking 500 billion from everyone if it's not worth that to everyone. (I think it was actually 500 million in this one case, but I didn't want to misquote you.)
We have to ask ourselves: Why do we develop green technology? How much money are we willing to waste? What sacrifices are we willing to make? What do we expect to get in return? Those are the most important questions that we should at least try to answer.
I'm afraid you've missed some of the more important ones. Will it give me a good photo opportunity? Will it get me enough votes to get me reelected? Will this come back to bite me before I retire?
some species can grow literally upto a metre per day
While that's accurate, I think it would be misleading to allow it to stand without comment. Bamboo gather energy during the year and store it in their rhizomes. Then they use that energy during the growing season to sprout new shoots. It's these new shoots which may grow that quickly, but only during that season. Any culms from previous years are stuck at whatever height they grew to during their growing year.
What I've said is true of the seven species that I own. Of course there are hundreds of species, so others may exhibit other habits.
I don't own any panda, so I don't have any personal knowledge of their habits, but my understanding is that they eat bamboo leaves. It's the culms that may grow so quickly.
If you film somebody being beaten, then wait until after the trial and the cop(s) has/have testified. THEN release it ANONYMOUSLY to the press.
One problem with your plan is that the defendant may otherwise be without evidence exonerating himself. In that case he will experience a great temptation to plead guilty. If he does then there may be no trial in which the cops have testified about the beating.
Fair enough. So stipulated. The government you want (apparently) being one that is incapable of doing any of the things that our government was intended to do, which is, primarily, the defense and maintenance of the commons. Most people, by far, want something quite different. Good luck with that in your fantasy world where federal revenue is 6.9% of GDP.
Don't forget that my reference was to the U.S. government of 1900 A.D. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary I'm going to have to assume that the government at that time was doing many of the things it was intended to do. After all, this was some one hundred and twelve years after it was established.
~Loyal
p.s. How do you equate the actual world as recorded by the federal government of the past to a fantasy world?
Nonsense. Prices are at some point set by supply and demand. If the government goes on a crazy spending spree, it will cause inflation even if bonds are issued to match the spending, simply because demand will outstrip supply.
Don't forget that buying bonds reduces demand. People who buy bonds generally want some low risk-low return investment. If they buy Treasury bonds then they won't be buying the next least risky investment, which I think means business paper. By that I mean a bond issued by businesses as a way to raise investment money. That money buys such things as office construction, machine tools, and other durable goods. If people buy bonds then they don't buy business paper with that same money, and those durable goods don't get bought, and that implies reduced demand.
Well, it's going to hit the economy. It hits the economy when the Treasury starts issuing checks based upon it. The question is--what are others going to do? Normally, it's inflationary when the Treasury issues checks, and it's deflationary when the Treasury borrows (issues bonds.) The key is that it's neither inflationary nor deflationary if they issue the same amount in bonds as they issue in checks. Well, disregarding taxation for the moment, which has the same deflationary effect as bonds.
By others, I mean the Federal Reserve System. Normally the Federal Reserve System sells bonds to counteract the inflationary effect of the Treasury's issuing checks, or they buy bonds to counteract the deflationary effect of the Treasury's issuing bonds, whichever effect is prevalent at the moment. This is called sanitizing the monetary effects of fiscal acts by the Treasury. On the one hand I would expect the Federal Reserve System to start selling bonds. By all accounts the Federal Reserve System has a huge reserve of bonds. The net result then would be that the Federal Reserve System's store of bonds drops, and there's no effect on inflation, and the government would still be borrowing from the public; it would just be the Federal Reserve System borrowing instead of the Treasury. On the other hand, the Federal Reserve System has been trying to pump liquidity into the economy by keeping the Federal Funds Rate at 0% so it's conceivable that they would permit the increased liquidity to stand at the risk of future inflation.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing a few lines, please elaborate! :o)
I'm probably being trolled, but...
~Loyal
“Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him”
Cardinal Richelieu
Clinton lied under oath about a material fact in a case rather than let Paula Jones have justice. Justice, by the way, that was owed to her according to American law. That same law that Clinton swore to execute. Do you know what Jones asked for as a pre-trial settlement? An apology. No money, no resignation, no gifts, no promotions. All Clinton would have had to do to satisfy Ms. Jones's demands was to sign and send her a written apology for what he did to her in that hotel room. In the scheme of things--President Clinton was impeached for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.
Articles of Impeachment for Obstruction of Justice had also passed committee against President Nixon. The other pending articles were Abuse of Power and Contempt of Congress. Sound familiar? Do you know what I hear you saying? It's okay when our guys do it.
~Loyal
Right, he lied about a bj. Right again, he asked someone to back up his lie about a bj.
I see. And Nixon resigned rather than be impeached for a third-rate burglary attempt he didn't even know about and a simple lapse of memory?
~Loyal
While he kind of comes off as an ass for ignoring the obvious lesson from political history and the horrible injustice of it all, I have to stand up for him FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. I'm a little funny about the truth.
By contrast, I think you're probably an upstanding person, and someone with whom I could enjoy a beer or three. My treat. Assuming we can work out the logistics. And assuming you're willing to drink with an ass.
~Loyal
In other words, the first count was for lying about a bj
The first count was not about lying about a bj. In fact President Clinton went on national television and stated, "I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Were you aware that he was not impeached for doing that? The reason that he wasn't impeached for that is because it's probably not an impeachable offense. The impeachment was for lying about a material fact while under oath. In other words: Perjury. The president was impeached for perjury. The president was not impeached for lying about a bj.
and the second was for asking someone to back up his lie about a bj.
The second count was not for asking someone to back up his lie about a bj. In that same television appearance President Clinton also stated, "I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never." Again, probably not an impeachable offense. The impeachment was for going to his secretary, after he was specifically instructed by the judge not to speak with anyone involved in the case about it, and trying to influence her testimony and get her help hiding the box of gifts. The president was impeached for obstruction of justice. The president was not impeached for asking someone to back up his lie about a bj.
~Loyal
THAT'S RIGHT. There's a list somewhere of all the lies you can tell under oath.
I would like to see it. Where can I find it?
If the judge asks me, "Do you like me? Do you like being here" I will look him in the eye and say "Sure I like you. There might be other places I'd rather be, but I like being here and given a chance to defend myself against charges of wrongdoing." Is that true: obviously not. Obviously I wouldn't like the judge, and would not like being there.
The judge wouldn't ask you any such question. Things are handled differently in civil and criminal trials, and Jones v. Clinton was a civil trial. In those, the people asking the questions are either the plaintiff's attorneys or the defense attorneys. In this case the plaintiff's attorneys were working for Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones's attorneys asked President Clinton whether he had ever had intimate relations with any subordinate. President Clinton was the defendant. At that point the defense attorneys had the opportunity to object to the question. Objections to questions have to be of particular types. Valid types of objections include ambiguous, argumentative, asked and answered, assumes facts not in evidence, badgering, best evidence rule, and others. The the judge rules that the witness doesn't have to answer the question by saying "sustained", or rules that he does by saying "overruled". One of two things happened. Either President Clinton's attorneys didn't object to the question, or the judge overruled whatever objections they voiced. That means that President Clinton was legally obligated to answer the question.
But I don't have to say that, because it is literally on the list somewhere.
You have to answer if the judge says you do.
I thought this would be obvious. Would you deny the above?
Because it's not true.
~Loyal
your story doesn't make sense. why would he be telling a judge if he has had intimate relations with any person who was subordinate to him?
It happened because someone, probably Hillary Clinton, attempted to destroy the reputation of Paula Jones. Ms. Jones brought suit against President Clinton for violation of her civil rights. She claimed that, as governor, she had her brought to his hotel room, dropped his pants, and told her to "kiss it". Ms. Jones attorneys attempted to bolster her claim by proving that he had a history of sexual activity with women who were subordinate to him. President Clinton tried to rebut her claim by stating, under oath, that he had never had intimate activity with any such person.
If you are are being asked that question, you don't have to answer it, you can say whatever you want.
Normally that would be true. Not, however, when a judge has order you to answer under oath. Not when you have sworn to tell the truth.
Now, if he had been asked if he had raped a woman -- subordinate or otherwise -- that would be a different question. You can't tell a judge whatever you want about whether you raped someone.
What a curious statement! So, is there a list somewhere of all the lies you can tell under oath? Why would you even swear to tell the truth?
Obviously I am simplifying somewhat, but what you've written simply doesn't make any sense. It would be like a judge asking you, "Have you used your office to gain private influence or influence for after you're done with office?" Obviously you don't have to answer that. That's not even a question in the realm of anything anyone has to answer.
The only thing remotely similar to what you're saying that I can think of is material claims. A material claim is one that has a bearing on the case. In the Jones v. Clinton case whether President Clinton had a history of intimate activity with subordinates was a material claim. Now, something like your favorite cereal, assuming that the case didn't involve your favorite cereal, would not be a material claim, and you would not be guilty of perjury. President Clinton was guilty of perjury.
~Loyal
Clinton was impeached for an act that was of no consequence to the nation.
That's not true. The president is the head of the executive branch of the government. The job of the executive is to carry out the laws of the United States. Instead of seeing to it that the laws were carried out, President Clinton violated those laws and suborned others to do so as well. This is the same level of consequences if the judiciary were to find for whomever paid them the most bribe money.
~Loyal
Clinton got impeached for getting a bj from a fat chick,
That's not true. Clinton was impeached for two things, neither of which was the physical encounter with Monica Lewinsky. The first thing he was impeached for was Perjury before a Grand Jury. The act that spawned this article of impeachment was when he claimed under oath in Judge Susan Webber Wright's grand jury that he had never had intimate relations with any person who was subordinate to him. The second thing he was impeached for was Obstruction of Justice. That acts that spawned this article of impeachment was when he encouraged Lewinsky to file a false affidavit, when he encouraged her to lie under oath, when he plotted with his secretary to hide a box of gifts he had given to Lewinsky, when he attempted to get Lewinsky a job so that she would not provide truthful testimony, when he lied to White House staff, and when he allowed his attorney to make false statements on his behalf.
~Loyal
The problem is that it's a mandatory service that *SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT*.
Why? What I mean to ask is--why should that service be provided by government? What attribute or property is common to all such services that they should be provided through that means?
I mean--my first thought is that health care is really important. However, that thought doesn't survive even a cursory examination. For example, food. I mean--isn't food more important than health care insurance? If you had a stack of food in front of you and a health care professional, which would you choose? Well, if you just got out of a car accident then you might choose the health care professional, but I'm saying the vast majority of people would choose the food. And the guy from the accident might choose the food, too, if it was going to be the only thing he was going to get to eat for the next month. But most people wouldn't claim that government should provide food. And housing and clothing. A huge number of people have died from exposure. I would guess that more people have died from exposure than have died from other treatable conditions, but people don't say government should provide housing and food. And besides, together food, housing, and clothing take up about 85% of the average American's budget. Shoot, a few more important things and we can just say that government should provide for us from cradle to grave. From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.
I mean, I get defense. It's because defense is indivisible. If everyone in America got exemplary defense, then Loyal Opposition would get exemplary defense as well, because it's not possible for the government to let invading armies across the border just to get Mr. O. So, I get why government should provide defense. And I even get some medical care. I mean, if Typhoid Mary gets to exercise her right to work wherever she wishes (providing she can get someone to hire her) then all the other people get infected. So I see why government would want to either force her to take a cure or keep her from the food service industry.
So, how is health care like war and pestilence?
~Loyal
My country; love it or leave it?
~Loyal
I hope it receives regular safety inspections, and they shut the ride down if it gets too worn.
~Loyal
When is air clean enough?
~Loyal
Why do you think the number one pollutant in New York City of 1880 has been eliminated? Governmental loan guarantees? I don't think so.
~Loyal
No, you may not assume that since not enough information exists about their or my own political leanings.
You may be revealing more about your political leanings than you think you are.
This person truncated the information available and then stretched the truth to make some bullshit political statement about "how bad government subsidies are"
I assume by "this person" you mean dusanv. I'm a little confused by your complaint that he truncated the information available. What dusanv did was to provide a summary, and that's what a summary means--that you truncate the information available. There are lots of summaries on Slashdot. Every article is summarized. In fact, when a submitter does provide all the information available there are hordes of complaints levied at the submitter for doing so. I'm also confused by your complaint that he stretched the truth. To study it more I looked the word "subsidy" up on Wikipedia. There seemed to be two salient points. The first point was that it was money given by government to support a business or person. The money described in the article appears to meet every point of that definition. Wikipedia also says:
Indirect subsidy is a term sufficiently broad that it may cover most other forms of subsidy.[citation needed] The term would cover any form of subsidy that does not involve a direct transfer.
Would I be correct in stating that you became extremely angry because dusanv didn't say:
Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar energy firm, indirectly subsidized to the tune of $500 million and held as a 'gleaming example of green technology,' announced bankruptcy yesterday. 1,100 employees fired.
That seems a terribly minor point to become so upset over.
Finally, you infer that dusanv makes a claim that government subsidies are bad. Try as I might, I can't find anything of the sort. The most I can infer is that perhaps dusanv is claiming that Solyndra isn't a 'gleaming example of green technology.'
I really like how people pick and choose evidence rather than confront all of it and attempt to formulate objective opinions.
Yeah. I've noticed that happening, too. Recently. In fact, I've seen it really, really recently.
~Loyal
It's very unfortunate that the destructive libertarian argument that the government should stop spending money and let the private sector work it out seemingly has so much traction.
Really? I would have thought this example proves the exact opposite. Let me put it this way, if everything else had gone the same way it actually did except that the company survived and made lots of solar panels, wouldn't that have supported the idea that government spending in this case was a good idea? So given that the company failed I don't see how that could also support the same conclusion.
~Loyal
The guy that posted this article is a moron asshole.
May I assume that means that he has a political opinion opposite yours?
Not only is he actually stretching the truth, he is also using a false example to make some bullshit political point. This company didnt recieve subsidies, it was loans.
Strictly speaking, you're correct. Or nearly so. The company received loan guarantees. Then they borrowed $527 million against those guarantees. Then they filed bankruptcy (or will) so they wouldn't have to pay the loans. Now the government is on the hook for the $527 million. As someone else pointed out, the government may not be out the entire amount, as they can force the company to hold a fire sale and regain some of it. However, it's a safe bet that they won't get more than about ten cents on a dollar.
Furthermore, as you said, "An experimental business fails in a collapsing economy".
The President touted the federally back money as a way to create jobs.
It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.
~Loyal
That doesn't necessarily mean a subsidy. If the company went broke and never got the loans no government money was spent.
Strictly speaking you're correct; however, from one of the links of the linked article...
The company has borrowed $527 million of the $535 million covered by the Energy Department loan guarantee, Damien LaVera, a department spokesman, said in an e-mail.
~Loyal
It's very unfortunate that the destructive libertarian argument that the government should stop spending money and let the private sector work it out seemingly has so much traction.
That's strange, because it seems to me that this example proves the exact opposite--the government decided where to spend the money, how much money to spend, and when to spend it, and it was all wasted. Wouldn't that prove that the libertarians are right when they claim that government should stop?
~Loyal
Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low?
Well, that wasn't my first thought. My first thought was that if they couldn't make a go of it with five hundred million dollars of subsidies then there would be no way they could make a go of it on a level playing field. It wasn't my second thought either. My second thought was that our government is surely incapable of picking winners. Similarly, with the third. My third thought was that I sold some scrap aluminum yesterday. It appears to me that they're able to make a go of it without subsidies. Maybe scrap aluminum isn't green? Nope, it's pretty green compared with smelting bauxite. Maybe it's an unfair comparison? Nope, manufacture of solar cells produces lots of waste.
How much the fresh air is worth to you?
Well, I've got plenty right now. I suppose I could use some more, though. I might be willing to pay a penny for a cubic mile. How much do you have?
To your children?
They are in the same boat as I am.
To your children's children?
They don't have any, so they wouldn't want any. But perhaps you're speaking metaphorically? Let's see...air is cleaner now than it was fifty years ago. Presumably, there will be more clean air when the grand kids come around. I don't know? Penny for a thousand cubic miles?
And what about fresh water?
Yeah, we're pretty well set for fresh water, too. I don't know...maybe if I had more fresh water I could water the lawn. What's the going rate? Let me buy one lawn worth of fresh water. But I'm not willing to pay the going rate! If I were then I would have watered it already. How about you give me a ninety percent discount?
What about cold weather?
I wouldn't give you a plugged nickle for all the cold weather in Antarctica.
I am not saying that all of those things should be worth more than 500 billion to everyone
That brings up a good point. Why is the government taking 500 billion from everyone if it's not worth that to everyone. (I think it was actually 500 million in this one case, but I didn't want to misquote you.)
We have to ask ourselves: Why do we develop green technology? How much money are we willing to waste? What sacrifices are we willing to make? What do we expect to get in return? Those are the most important questions that we should at least try to answer.
I'm afraid you've missed some of the more important ones. Will it give me a good photo opportunity? Will it get me enough votes to get me reelected? Will this come back to bite me before I retire?
~Loyal
some species can grow literally upto a metre per day
While that's accurate, I think it would be misleading to allow it to stand without comment. Bamboo gather energy during the year and store it in their rhizomes. Then they use that energy during the growing season to sprout new shoots. It's these new shoots which may grow that quickly, but only during that season. Any culms from previous years are stuck at whatever height they grew to during their growing year.
What I've said is true of the seven species that I own. Of course there are hundreds of species, so others may exhibit other habits.
I don't own any panda, so I don't have any personal knowledge of their habits, but my understanding is that they eat bamboo leaves. It's the culms that may grow so quickly.
~Loyal
If you film somebody being beaten, then wait until after the trial and the cop(s) has/have testified. THEN release it ANONYMOUSLY to the press.
One problem with your plan is that the defendant may otherwise be without evidence exonerating himself. In that case he will experience a great temptation to plead guilty. If he does then there may be no trial in which the cops have testified about the beating.
~Loyal
Fair enough. So stipulated. The government you want (apparently) being one that is incapable of doing any of the things that our government was intended to do, which is, primarily, the defense and maintenance of the commons. Most people, by far, want something quite different. Good luck with that in your fantasy world where federal revenue is 6.9% of GDP.
Don't forget that my reference was to the U.S. government of 1900 A.D. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary I'm going to have to assume that the government at that time was doing many of the things it was intended to do. After all, this was some one hundred and twelve years after it was established.
~Loyal
p.s. How do you equate the actual world as recorded by the federal government of the past to a fantasy world?
Nonsense. Prices are at some point set by supply and demand. If the government goes on a crazy spending spree, it will cause inflation even if bonds are issued to match the spending, simply because demand will outstrip supply.
Don't forget that buying bonds reduces demand. People who buy bonds generally want some low risk-low return investment. If they buy Treasury bonds then they won't be buying the next least risky investment, which I think means business paper. By that I mean a bond issued by businesses as a way to raise investment money. That money buys such things as office construction, machine tools, and other durable goods. If people buy bonds then they don't buy business paper with that same money, and those durable goods don't get bought, and that implies reduced demand.
~Loyal
Well, it's going to hit the economy. It hits the economy when the Treasury starts issuing checks based upon it. The question is--what are others going to do? Normally, it's inflationary when the Treasury issues checks, and it's deflationary when the Treasury borrows (issues bonds.) The key is that it's neither inflationary nor deflationary if they issue the same amount in bonds as they issue in checks. Well, disregarding taxation for the moment, which has the same deflationary effect as bonds.
By others, I mean the Federal Reserve System. Normally the Federal Reserve System sells bonds to counteract the inflationary effect of the Treasury's issuing checks, or they buy bonds to counteract the deflationary effect of the Treasury's issuing bonds, whichever effect is prevalent at the moment. This is called sanitizing the monetary effects of fiscal acts by the Treasury. On the one hand I would expect the Federal Reserve System to start selling bonds. By all accounts the Federal Reserve System has a huge reserve of bonds. The net result then would be that the Federal Reserve System's store of bonds drops, and there's no effect on inflation, and the government would still be borrowing from the public; it would just be the Federal Reserve System borrowing instead of the Treasury. On the other hand, the Federal Reserve System has been trying to pump liquidity into the economy by keeping the Federal Funds Rate at 0% so it's conceivable that they would permit the increased liquidity to stand at the risk of future inflation.
~Loyal