Like Coal doesn't have a radiation problem too.. Shesh people... Crushing it before you burn it is pretty dangerous from a radio activity perspective.
Also, no, most parts of a nuclear plant are NOT radioactive, unless there has been some kind of abnormal event. The bulk of the plant, including the containment structure, can just be jackhammered apart and hauled away like any other kind of plant. It's not like they are all glowing blue inside or something...
Nuclear power plants are big things. Gas fired plants are big things too. Hauling off one is expensive because it's big. But being expensive does not mean it's impossible or impractical to do. Both Windmills and power plants can (and are) disassembled and removed... Which is all I'm saying.
Oh, you are talking about OLD dirty plants which don't have modern emission controls.... You can still remove the plant and make it appear nothing was ever there, mercury contamination not withstanding.
Yea, there are LOTS of things we've done in the past which we will never clean up... Take a look at what's going on around Pitcher OK. Talk about an environmental nightmare and all from mining lead, we are NEVER cleaning that one up. There are lots of scars we as humans will leave on this planet which are going to be around for a long time. Windmills, coal plants, roads and a whole host of things we've done. It's part of living on the planet.
I know there are people who think the media is just in the tank for the left, that they choose sides knowingly, the Cabal mentality. I don't think it's true. I think the people in the "media" are really acting in their own best interest and within their personal beliefs. However, this tends to align them with the views of the people in power more than they and an outside observer might imagine.
Look at the choices of people working for Fox over those working for CNN, what do they cover? How is it different? Get really wacky and listen to NPR and contrast that with Fox and CNN. It's night and day what they choose to comment on and how the stories are slanted and if you forget your personal opinion for a moment and just listen to the differences in how things get reported. It's striking to me, just how slanted outlets like NPR actually are, how they feed on each other's stories, using the same words and phrases to explain their take on the story. But this is how the cheese is made, how the media feeds on itself, reinforces its perceptions and ends up generally on the left of everything because of the influence of a few.... Well, that and the politics of personal destruction and this headlong rush to be PC we are in... Oh no, you MUST have the proper views or your are stupid, bigoted, racist or a combination of the three.
Not only that, they provide a concentrated source of necessary nutrition, some of which is really hard to find in just plants...
Can you Say vitamin B12?
However, even though I'm not a vegetarian, or a vegan, or an environmentalist who's into saving the world from global warming, Count me one of the folks who hold this study in low regard.... If you set out to arrive at a conclusion, it's always possible though careful weeding out of the data you use. Just ask the global warming crowd..
Like some crumbled up concrete and scrap metal is a problem to get rid of, we do it all the time with old buildings... Concrete is inert so you can us it as fill someplace or put it in a land fill and the metal can be recycled. Radioactive you say? Not for that long if the plant is run correctly and allowed time settle. Plants that have incidents and don't shut down clean like Three Mile Island Unit 2 can get messy, but it's really a only a matter of time.
The only real problem at nuclear power plants these days is spent fuel rods, but that's more of a geo-political issue than a technical one. We know how to reprocess these things and get the nasty parts into forms that are stable enough for long term storage. It's really a small percentage of the total mass that's an issue, we just don't want to take the steps necessary to make it easy to store.
The wind turbines I've seen are not exactly the picture of recyclability. The blades are carbon composites or fiberglass as are the cowlings and that box at the top of the tower that keeps the rain off of stuff. None of that is easily recycled. There is quite a bit of metal and other stuff you can melt down and reuse I guess but how's that much different than any kind of industrial situation?
There are countries in this world which do NOT have the resources to do what you want for their people, what makes you think the USA will always have enough or that we could hope to even do it now?
Go take a look at the falling labor participation rate in this country, consider the demographics we face and then tell me we have the resources to do what you want to do over the next 20 years. Take a look at the example of Greece and Argentina, even Venezuela proves that what you suggest is not workable in the long term. The government cannot tax enough to provide enough without killing their economies. If we go down *your* path, we are actually condemning more people to the ravages of poverty, citizens of THIS country as well as in the world. You would wreck our economy though confiscatory tax rates, smother economic development in your vain attempts to fight poverty.
No you have no limits, All it takes is one more sob story about how there are poor suffering because the don't have what you own that makes you feel guilty and you are off to vote in politicians who dupe you into supporting their next vote buying welfare give away to sooth your consonance. Even if it means that we ALL will eventually suffer and multitudes of people will die needlessly, only because you and people like you have no limits because you have no forethought and don't pay attention to what is really going on.
So tell me again how you have limits? Tell the pensioners in Greece how it's all going to work out, that the promises made by their bankrupt government will get kept, how the social security and Medicare entitlements are going to work as the labor participation rate continues to fall and you don't have to confiscate more and more of working people's paychecks or reduce benefits and put folks back into poverty? How in the face of this you intend to fund the growing welfare roles which support a lot of able bodied people who *could* work but don't have to? And still have limits to what you think the government should take? You have no limits.
Your idea of government amounts to wealth redistribution, which is the basic idea of communism. Face it. Your idea of government can take EVERYTHING away from you for no other reason than you are alive and live in the country. That form of government doesn't work out so well historically....
May I suggest you examine the principles of this country's founding and find out how the forefathers approached this? I think you will find that they where about self reliance and got pretty sensitive about taxes... Clearly THEY had limits... I have limits... You? Not so much I'm afraid.
Sometimes I wonder if the media doesn't really know this and are just trying to drive the republican nomination to him. He's Hillary's only hope.
Think about this. Why did he run as a republican? I think it was because he knew what we all know that Hillary is going to be the democratic nominee, there is no chance anybody else makes it, even Trump. He also knew that a third party run would get him into the general election but he would surely loose and again Hillary would likely win. His *only* path to the presidency was though the republican party nomination process. So he changes parties, develops a right leaning stance to go with is tough guy persona and starts out early by scaring the republican establishment into accepting him into the fold by the "I'll go third party" threat, which they fell for, hook line and sinker.
I think the Media *wants* Trump to run in the general. He's the opponent that Hillary is most likely to best that has any chance to get the nomination. I think the Clintons are dying for Trump to lock this nomination up and waiting for the last desperate mud slinging to start so they can suck up all the ammunition they can and the media is playing into both of their hands, both on purpose and because they are chasing ratings. Trump is crazy like a fox on this part and is playing the media.
However, once the nomination is locked up, the Clintons will unleash and the mighty Trump will be facing a withering broadside both from the media that built him and the Clintons who want to beat him. I'm not sure his current bag of tricks will work in the general election because the Clintons will be ready for it. He will either have to change tactics or Hillary will win. The problem is though, I'm not sure Trump has any other tactics up his sleeves other than spending money. The question will be if it is enough to beat Hillary? I'm not sure it is.
All that's really clear is it's going to be an interesting year...
Where I don't disagree with your analysis of Trump, I was trying to further the original poster's card playing joke...
Trump's running for the nomination is more about dissatisfaction with the status quo in Washington DC where the two parties have literally fought over the controls of a car that is careening along a mountain road towards a cliff. One party has the gas peddle covered and the other is yanking the wheel while the passengers in the back are yelling "Do something you fools!" Trump is seen as the outsider, plain talking, unPC candidate that doesn't give a (blank) about the fools in the front seat, but claims he knows how to drive. Reality is nobody knows if he can drive or not, they just know the fools trying it now are going to crash the car, and soon.
So, in reality it's about the old saw "Change" and Trump's attraction is that he's really neither party, even if he happens to be running as a republican. My guess is he choose to run as a republican because he knew Hillary would win the democratic nomination, hands down and running as an independent would hand the office to Hillary, so he picked the path of least resistance, chose his message to be quazi right and went for it on the republican side.
In my opinion, Trump is just as duplicitous as all the other establishment candidates in the running. He's carefully choosing what he says and making sure it has lots of flash, but is short on substance. He has ZERO past history as a politician so he's a blank slate upon which anybody can draw their own conclusions and he's pretty skillfully using that to his advantage, announcing plans which are big on promises, but short on reality.
So how much of the rich's resources are you prepared to take? Have you ANY limits?
The bare minimum necessary to ensure a humane lifestyle floor for all citizens. Once everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare, we can let capitalism run as rampant as we want beyond that.
So you really have no limits then. You are a communist at heart.
A wise teacher once said "The poor you will always have with you." So you will never succeed in eliminating all the poor. If we attempt to make everybody comfortable at taxpayers expense it doesn't matter how much you take and borrow, you will need more than there is and will take it all.
So some university takes exception to something Trump says on the campaign trail and withdraws an honorary degree... How's that relevant to Trump loosing in his effort to block the construction of some windmills?
Oh yea, it's bash the Republican front runner time... So he gets two demerits, for saying something un PC about some specific religion they don't like AND for being on the wrong side of the "green" movement.
I think Trump is a joke, but come on people, stop feeding him by reacting to is stupid inflammatory statements. It's clear he doesn't care about either of these things and the press coverage of them only strengthens his candidacy by keeping his name and face on the front page. PLEASE let him drift off into obscurity... Unless you really secretly desire to have him as president of the United States because if he wins the nomination, that's exactly what he will be on January 20th 2017.
I don't know what's on his head if it's not a Toupee.... If it's his real hair, some stylist needs to stop dying different parts of it different colors because it looks horrible this way...
My age is showing, but I was witness to the dismantling and removal of a research reactor which had operated for decades on the campus of the college I attended. They hauled it off in pieces and then built a lecture hall in it's place.
There is nothing to prevent you from returning a nuclear plant site to it's original form, if you really wanted too.
I think if history judges the presence of this wind farm unfavorably, they can, you know, just tear it down. It seems much easier to undo the damage of a wind farm than it does, say, a coal plant.
What's so hard about tearing down a coal plant?
Oh... You are trying to imply the "global warming is man made" idea is truth... Silly rabbit, we don't have any clue if this is true or not...
At least with Reagan, we enjoyed decades of economic growth and foreign policy achievements which where positive. The whole world was better off with Reagan in office, even if your history text book says otherwise. I know, I was a young adult working for a living at the time.
It's no secret Cabal. In fact it's no secret at all.. It's "group think" and a lack of journalism standards and ethics. Gone are the days a journalist was basically independent and could investigate anything and write his stories as he saw fit. Nowadays, it's keep the advertisers happy and avoid ticking off the huge corporation that owns you, your product and pays you expenses.
Then you are a socialist at heart and are in the wrong country. There MUST be limits to what the government can take by force of law from everybody. Personal property MUST be allowed or the unalienable rights our forefathers fought the British for are invalid.
I get your fairness argument, and it has emotional appeal, but if you allow it to rule the day, this country becomes something other than the place where your rights are protected, where you can work hard, make money and own more stuff. You are running headlong on the path to the communist argument where everybody is owed subsistence from the state and EVERYTHING is owned/controlled by the state.
The function of government is to provide a level playing field for business activity and prosecute those who lie, cheat, steal or otherwise harm others. It's job is to insure equal opportunity but It's not to make outcomes equal. So how much of the rich's resources are you prepared to take? Have you ANY limits? Remember, it's really easy to just wave your hand and say you won't do that, but it is really hard to define exactly how far you are willing to go. How are you going to limit the power of government here?
Don't conflate the idea that "All men are created equal" with your false idea that being equal can only be measured in outcome, that the only fair outcome is where the difference between the rich and poor doesn't exist. That kind of thinking is what dumbs down our kids by giving ALL the players the same trophy, not just the winners, or where we accept and reward mediocre effort the same as those who work hard and succeed. When you do that, guess what you get...
I fully understand the place of government debt and how it's related to the GDP. The risk associated with the debt has a direct relationship to the percentage of GDP it consumes. However, you miss the issue if you hide yourself behind this. The debt will need to be paid, somehow, and eventually the *value* of the goods and services we purchased with this money we borrowed will need to be repaid.
Also, don't try to point to Greece and claim that what happened there will happen here. It won't. What happened in Greece is they where stuck owing and had no means to forestall the debt collectors. There wasn't enough tax revenue to maintain current services, keep the banks in currency and make the interest payments. That won't happen to the USA. We just print money, pay our debts, blow up the money supply and EVERYBODY pays. It's called Quantitative Easing. How does everybody pay? Your dollars are worth less and less because there are more and more of them, and although your wages are always going higher, you can buy less and less. In a way, this is what happened to Greece, only they did it all at once. We will be like the frogs in the petri dish, with the heat slowly increasing, but the poor get poorer, the middle class ends up in poverty and the rich stay rich. BTW.. That's what has been happening over the last 7 years in the country, the only thing we've not yet seen is the inflation, but that's coming, or worse. All that's kept us afloat is that there are other countries imploding, making the US dollar seem like a safe place... We'd be Argentina if it wasn't for that.
The problem though, is that all the money we've spent on poverty to date, hasn't helped. In fact, In my view, we've spent a small fortune handing out fish and creating a class of people who want nothing more than to keep getting fish for free. Why are their "Don't feed the bears" signs all over Yellowstone? Because we don't want them to be come dependent on humans for easy food, healthy happy bears need to know how to forage. I remember when the EBT cards of welfare clients stopped working for a few hours a while back. It was nearly a riot in WalMar's everywhere. We've created a culture of dependency, which is not a good thing, and there is no amount of money that can fix this because it was spending money that caused it.
However, the BIGGEST problem I have with your views is your thinking it's a good idea to take from the rich and give to the poor, that it's somehow the only morally acceptable course of action. Taking taxes is a necessary evil, but make no mistake it's EVIL and as such should be avoided as much as possible. You see, taking from the individual (rich or not) is the basis of socialism/Communism, a system of government which has been shown to not work well or honor basic human rights. I don't think we are careful enough here these days. At one time in our history, the suggestion you make would have drawn scorn and cries that you where trying to create new despots and allow inordinate powers over the people by government. So, I don't believe it's a good idea to trample property rights with confiscatory tax policy necessary to support our current spending levels and debt. Eventually your "take from the rich" idea turns into a form of government which is antithetical to our founding principles so don't fool yourself by thinking it's doing something good for the poor... It's not.
Oh please.. Money != power in our republic. Poor people get as many votes per person as the rich.
Is your goal reducing poverty or raising the standard of living? Think carefully. Because taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" may provide an immediate reduction in poverty, but it lowers everyone's standard of living. But taking from the rich only goes so far, so we as a country are going into debt to provide welfare, healthcare and anti-poverty campaigns. Big time debt. But don't worry, we can just print cash to pay that debt you know... Just wait.. Everybody will loose when the debt hits the fan, and it will. Everybody will pay for this, the poor most of all.
The CBO says that repealing the ACA (Obamacare) would actually lower the deficit, raise employment, cut taxes and actually end up putting more on health insurance roles, which is EXACTLY what the right was saying when this got rammed though congress... You liberals don't ask yourself "what happens then?" because the future is not what drives you, you are driven by emotions, by "think of the children!" appeals designed to tug at the heart strings, assuage your consciences for not doing something YOURSELF by letting the government do it for you. So we get huge anti-poverty efforts and matching huge deficits which will erase every good thing you dream your program might accomplish and then some. Conservatives are driven by what's best in the long term and what's going to do the most good for people. We don't hand out just fish, we hand out fishing poles and bait while we remove restrictions on where folks can fish. We also advocate that we not use government to pass out fish and poles because of the waste it creates in buying overpriced fish and handing out government designed poles. Who does the most good? The one who hands out fish, or the one who hands out fishing poles? Ask yourself, what happens next in each case...
Wow, what a bunch of leftist claptrap... So Government is now your vehicle of choice for delivery of charity? I hope not.
Government is the absolute worst way to do charity (OK, Maybe the Clinton Foundation is but follow me..).. There are places where government makes sense but everybody needs to understand that Government is the absolute worst way to spend money because of the waste involved. Government simply cannot be efficient and effective at the same time, it's too big. Charity (welfare, health care for poor etc.) is more efficiently and effectively done by smaller local groups depending on local donations. Such arrangements get you a better return on your dollars, provides more value to those receiving the charity are more effective and efficient because they are small..
So, if you goal is to get the best return on your Charity dollar, government should be last on your list of ways to provide it. For example, it's far more effective and efficient for *YOU* to show up at the homeless shelter with donations and offer to help hand out food, than just pay taxes and assume the government will fill the need.
At least not in an attempt to create a thriving colony. We might maintain a scientific outpost there, but it will be temporary structures, suitable for extended stays lasting a year or two, but not equipped to be self sufficient over longer terms. It will be forever dependent on regular re-supply. There is no other possible way. Think of it as a remote space station, just harder to get to. Think of it like the south pole station, only in a place that takes a year to get to, is colder, and you cannot ever go outside. We are NOT staying there.
Why? Because Mars is a horrible place. It has no radiation shielding to speak of, so you are going to be living under ground. It's *really* cold, so cold that it's going to take a LOT of energy to keep warm enough to survive. There is no atmosphere to speak of and what IS there is useless being nearly completely carbon dioxide. It's also very dusty which wreaks havoc with solar collectors, machinery and anything that moves. It's also pretty much barren of anything useful that we could collect and easily use. No dirt suitable for growing, no water, no organic materials or things we might grow food with. There might be some liquid water in the form of bine, but it's going to be really hard to collect and need serious processing to be drinkable or usable for growing stuff.
We are NOT going there to stay. We may visit, we may stay there for extended periods, but it will be temporary.
Slashdot Mirror
Like Coal doesn't have a radiation problem too.. Shesh people... Crushing it before you burn it is pretty dangerous from a radio activity perspective.
Also, no, most parts of a nuclear plant are NOT radioactive, unless there has been some kind of abnormal event. The bulk of the plant, including the containment structure, can just be jackhammered apart and hauled away like any other kind of plant. It's not like they are all glowing blue inside or something...
Nuclear power plants are big things. Gas fired plants are big things too. Hauling off one is expensive because it's big. But being expensive does not mean it's impossible or impractical to do. Both Windmills and power plants can (and are) disassembled and removed... Which is all I'm saying.
Oh, you are talking about OLD dirty plants which don't have modern emission controls.... You can still remove the plant and make it appear nothing was ever there, mercury contamination not withstanding.
Yea, there are LOTS of things we've done in the past which we will never clean up... Take a look at what's going on around Pitcher OK. Talk about an environmental nightmare and all from mining lead, we are NEVER cleaning that one up. There are lots of scars we as humans will leave on this planet which are going to be around for a long time. Windmills, coal plants, roads and a whole host of things we've done. It's part of living on the planet.
Actually, it does make sense in this dimension...
I know there are people who think the media is just in the tank for the left, that they choose sides knowingly, the Cabal mentality. I don't think it's true. I think the people in the "media" are really acting in their own best interest and within their personal beliefs. However, this tends to align them with the views of the people in power more than they and an outside observer might imagine.
Look at the choices of people working for Fox over those working for CNN, what do they cover? How is it different? Get really wacky and listen to NPR and contrast that with Fox and CNN. It's night and day what they choose to comment on and how the stories are slanted and if you forget your personal opinion for a moment and just listen to the differences in how things get reported. It's striking to me, just how slanted outlets like NPR actually are, how they feed on each other's stories, using the same words and phrases to explain their take on the story. But this is how the cheese is made, how the media feeds on itself, reinforces its perceptions and ends up generally on the left of everything because of the influence of a few.... Well, that and the politics of personal destruction and this headlong rush to be PC we are in... Oh no, you MUST have the proper views or your are stupid, bigoted, racist or a combination of the three.
Not only that, they provide a concentrated source of necessary nutrition, some of which is really hard to find in just plants...
Can you Say vitamin B12?
However, even though I'm not a vegetarian, or a vegan, or an environmentalist who's into saving the world from global warming, Count me one of the folks who hold this study in low regard.... If you set out to arrive at a conclusion, it's always possible though careful weeding out of the data you use. Just ask the global warming crowd..
Like some crumbled up concrete and scrap metal is a problem to get rid of, we do it all the time with old buildings... Concrete is inert so you can us it as fill someplace or put it in a land fill and the metal can be recycled. Radioactive you say? Not for that long if the plant is run correctly and allowed time settle. Plants that have incidents and don't shut down clean like Three Mile Island Unit 2 can get messy, but it's really a only a matter of time.
The only real problem at nuclear power plants these days is spent fuel rods, but that's more of a geo-political issue than a technical one. We know how to reprocess these things and get the nasty parts into forms that are stable enough for long term storage. It's really a small percentage of the total mass that's an issue, we just don't want to take the steps necessary to make it easy to store.
The wind turbines I've seen are not exactly the picture of recyclability. The blades are carbon composites or fiberglass as are the cowlings and that box at the top of the tower that keeps the rain off of stuff. None of that is easily recycled. There is quite a bit of metal and other stuff you can melt down and reuse I guess but how's that much different than any kind of industrial situation?
You think you have limits? I don't think you do.
There are countries in this world which do NOT have the resources to do what you want for their people, what makes you think the USA will always have enough or that we could hope to even do it now?
Go take a look at the falling labor participation rate in this country, consider the demographics we face and then tell me we have the resources to do what you want to do over the next 20 years. Take a look at the example of Greece and Argentina, even Venezuela proves that what you suggest is not workable in the long term. The government cannot tax enough to provide enough without killing their economies. If we go down *your* path, we are actually condemning more people to the ravages of poverty, citizens of THIS country as well as in the world. You would wreck our economy though confiscatory tax rates, smother economic development in your vain attempts to fight poverty.
No you have no limits, All it takes is one more sob story about how there are poor suffering because the don't have what you own that makes you feel guilty and you are off to vote in politicians who dupe you into supporting their next vote buying welfare give away to sooth your consonance. Even if it means that we ALL will eventually suffer and multitudes of people will die needlessly, only because you and people like you have no limits because you have no forethought and don't pay attention to what is really going on.
So tell me again how you have limits? Tell the pensioners in Greece how it's all going to work out, that the promises made by their bankrupt government will get kept, how the social security and Medicare entitlements are going to work as the labor participation rate continues to fall and you don't have to confiscate more and more of working people's paychecks or reduce benefits and put folks back into poverty? How in the face of this you intend to fund the growing welfare roles which support a lot of able bodied people who *could* work but don't have to? And still have limits to what you think the government should take? You have no limits.
Your idea of government amounts to wealth redistribution, which is the basic idea of communism. Face it. Your idea of government can take EVERYTHING away from you for no other reason than you are alive and live in the country. That form of government doesn't work out so well historically....
May I suggest you examine the principles of this country's founding and find out how the forefathers approached this? I think you will find that they where about self reliance and got pretty sensitive about taxes... Clearly THEY had limits... I have limits... You? Not so much I'm afraid.
Sometimes I wonder if the media doesn't really know this and are just trying to drive the republican nomination to him. He's Hillary's only hope.
Think about this. Why did he run as a republican? I think it was because he knew what we all know that Hillary is going to be the democratic nominee, there is no chance anybody else makes it, even Trump. He also knew that a third party run would get him into the general election but he would surely loose and again Hillary would likely win. His *only* path to the presidency was though the republican party nomination process. So he changes parties, develops a right leaning stance to go with is tough guy persona and starts out early by scaring the republican establishment into accepting him into the fold by the "I'll go third party" threat, which they fell for, hook line and sinker.
I think the Media *wants* Trump to run in the general. He's the opponent that Hillary is most likely to best that has any chance to get the nomination. I think the Clintons are dying for Trump to lock this nomination up and waiting for the last desperate mud slinging to start so they can suck up all the ammunition they can and the media is playing into both of their hands, both on purpose and because they are chasing ratings. Trump is crazy like a fox on this part and is playing the media.
However, once the nomination is locked up, the Clintons will unleash and the mighty Trump will be facing a withering broadside both from the media that built him and the Clintons who want to beat him. I'm not sure his current bag of tricks will work in the general election because the Clintons will be ready for it. He will either have to change tactics or Hillary will win. The problem is though, I'm not sure Trump has any other tactics up his sleeves other than spending money. The question will be if it is enough to beat Hillary? I'm not sure it is.
All that's really clear is it's going to be an interesting year...
Where I don't disagree with your analysis of Trump, I was trying to further the original poster's card playing joke...
Trump's running for the nomination is more about dissatisfaction with the status quo in Washington DC where the two parties have literally fought over the controls of a car that is careening along a mountain road towards a cliff. One party has the gas peddle covered and the other is yanking the wheel while the passengers in the back are yelling "Do something you fools!" Trump is seen as the outsider, plain talking, unPC candidate that doesn't give a (blank) about the fools in the front seat, but claims he knows how to drive. Reality is nobody knows if he can drive or not, they just know the fools trying it now are going to crash the car, and soon.
So, in reality it's about the old saw "Change" and Trump's attraction is that he's really neither party, even if he happens to be running as a republican. My guess is he choose to run as a republican because he knew Hillary would win the democratic nomination, hands down and running as an independent would hand the office to Hillary, so he picked the path of least resistance, chose his message to be quazi right and went for it on the republican side.
In my opinion, Trump is just as duplicitous as all the other establishment candidates in the running. He's carefully choosing what he says and making sure it has lots of flash, but is short on substance. He has ZERO past history as a politician so he's a blank slate upon which anybody can draw their own conclusions and he's pretty skillfully using that to his advantage, announcing plans which are big on promises, but short on reality.
The bare minimum necessary to ensure a humane lifestyle floor for all citizens. Once everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare, we can let capitalism run as rampant as we want beyond that.
So you really have no limits then. You are a communist at heart.
A wise teacher once said "The poor you will always have with you." So you will never succeed in eliminating all the poor. If we attempt to make everybody comfortable at taxpayers expense it doesn't matter how much you take and borrow, you will need more than there is and will take it all.
So some university takes exception to something Trump says on the campaign trail and withdraws an honorary degree... How's that relevant to Trump loosing in his effort to block the construction of some windmills?
Oh yea, it's bash the Republican front runner time... So he gets two demerits, for saying something un PC about some specific religion they don't like AND for being on the wrong side of the "green" movement.
I think Trump is a joke, but come on people, stop feeding him by reacting to is stupid inflammatory statements. It's clear he doesn't care about either of these things and the press coverage of them only strengthens his candidacy by keeping his name and face on the front page. PLEASE let him drift off into obscurity... Unless you really secretly desire to have him as president of the United States because if he wins the nomination, that's exactly what he will be on January 20th 2017.
he was trumped. . .
Yea, but somehow I gather this isn't the last trick...
A blow hard is trying to stop a wind farm?
Of course, it's a conflict of interest..
I don't know what's on his head if it's not a Toupee.... If it's his real hair, some stylist needs to stop dying different parts of it different colors because it looks horrible this way...
How's that?
My age is showing, but I was witness to the dismantling and removal of a research reactor which had operated for decades on the campus of the college I attended. They hauled it off in pieces and then built a lecture hall in it's place.
There is nothing to prevent you from returning a nuclear plant site to it's original form, if you really wanted too.
I think if history judges the presence of this wind farm unfavorably, they can, you know, just tear it down. It seems much easier to undo the damage of a wind farm than it does, say, a coal plant.
What's so hard about tearing down a coal plant?
Oh... You are trying to imply the "global warming is man made" idea is truth... Silly rabbit, we don't have any clue if this is true or not...
At least with Reagan, we enjoyed decades of economic growth and foreign policy achievements which where positive. The whole world was better off with Reagan in office, even if your history text book says otherwise. I know, I was a young adult working for a living at the time.
It's no secret Cabal. In fact it's no secret at all.. It's "group think" and a lack of journalism standards and ethics. Gone are the days a journalist was basically independent and could investigate anything and write his stories as he saw fit. Nowadays, it's keep the advertisers happy and avoid ticking off the huge corporation that owns you, your product and pays you expenses.
Then you are a socialist at heart and are in the wrong country. There MUST be limits to what the government can take by force of law from everybody. Personal property MUST be allowed or the unalienable rights our forefathers fought the British for are invalid.
I get your fairness argument, and it has emotional appeal, but if you allow it to rule the day, this country becomes something other than the place where your rights are protected, where you can work hard, make money and own more stuff. You are running headlong on the path to the communist argument where everybody is owed subsistence from the state and EVERYTHING is owned/controlled by the state.
The function of government is to provide a level playing field for business activity and prosecute those who lie, cheat, steal or otherwise harm others. It's job is to insure equal opportunity but It's not to make outcomes equal. So how much of the rich's resources are you prepared to take? Have you ANY limits? Remember, it's really easy to just wave your hand and say you won't do that, but it is really hard to define exactly how far you are willing to go. How are you going to limit the power of government here?
Don't conflate the idea that "All men are created equal" with your false idea that being equal can only be measured in outcome, that the only fair outcome is where the difference between the rich and poor doesn't exist. That kind of thinking is what dumbs down our kids by giving ALL the players the same trophy, not just the winners, or where we accept and reward mediocre effort the same as those who work hard and succeed. When you do that, guess what you get...
Nice smoke screen dude.
I fully understand the place of government debt and how it's related to the GDP. The risk associated with the debt has a direct relationship to the percentage of GDP it consumes. However, you miss the issue if you hide yourself behind this. The debt will need to be paid, somehow, and eventually the *value* of the goods and services we purchased with this money we borrowed will need to be repaid.
Also, don't try to point to Greece and claim that what happened there will happen here. It won't. What happened in Greece is they where stuck owing and had no means to forestall the debt collectors. There wasn't enough tax revenue to maintain current services, keep the banks in currency and make the interest payments. That won't happen to the USA. We just print money, pay our debts, blow up the money supply and EVERYBODY pays. It's called Quantitative Easing. How does everybody pay? Your dollars are worth less and less because there are more and more of them, and although your wages are always going higher, you can buy less and less. In a way, this is what happened to Greece, only they did it all at once. We will be like the frogs in the petri dish, with the heat slowly increasing, but the poor get poorer, the middle class ends up in poverty and the rich stay rich. BTW.. That's what has been happening over the last 7 years in the country, the only thing we've not yet seen is the inflation, but that's coming, or worse. All that's kept us afloat is that there are other countries imploding, making the US dollar seem like a safe place... We'd be Argentina if it wasn't for that.
The problem though, is that all the money we've spent on poverty to date, hasn't helped. In fact, In my view, we've spent a small fortune handing out fish and creating a class of people who want nothing more than to keep getting fish for free. Why are their "Don't feed the bears" signs all over Yellowstone? Because we don't want them to be come dependent on humans for easy food, healthy happy bears need to know how to forage. I remember when the EBT cards of welfare clients stopped working for a few hours a while back. It was nearly a riot in WalMar's everywhere. We've created a culture of dependency, which is not a good thing, and there is no amount of money that can fix this because it was spending money that caused it.
However, the BIGGEST problem I have with your views is your thinking it's a good idea to take from the rich and give to the poor, that it's somehow the only morally acceptable course of action. Taking taxes is a necessary evil, but make no mistake it's EVIL and as such should be avoided as much as possible. You see, taking from the individual (rich or not) is the basis of socialism/Communism, a system of government which has been shown to not work well or honor basic human rights. I don't think we are careful enough here these days. At one time in our history, the suggestion you make would have drawn scorn and cries that you where trying to create new despots and allow inordinate powers over the people by government. So, I don't believe it's a good idea to trample property rights with confiscatory tax policy necessary to support our current spending levels and debt. Eventually your "take from the rich" idea turns into a form of government which is antithetical to our founding principles so don't fool yourself by thinking it's doing something good for the poor... It's not.
Oh please.. Money != power in our republic. Poor people get as many votes per person as the rich.
Is your goal reducing poverty or raising the standard of living? Think carefully. Because taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" may provide an immediate reduction in poverty, but it lowers everyone's standard of living. But taking from the rich only goes so far, so we as a country are going into debt to provide welfare, healthcare and anti-poverty campaigns. Big time debt. But don't worry, we can just print cash to pay that debt you know... Just wait.. Everybody will loose when the debt hits the fan, and it will. Everybody will pay for this, the poor most of all.
The CBO says that repealing the ACA (Obamacare) would actually lower the deficit, raise employment, cut taxes and actually end up putting more on health insurance roles, which is EXACTLY what the right was saying when this got rammed though congress... You liberals don't ask yourself "what happens then?" because the future is not what drives you, you are driven by emotions, by "think of the children!" appeals designed to tug at the heart strings, assuage your consciences for not doing something YOURSELF by letting the government do it for you. So we get huge anti-poverty efforts and matching huge deficits which will erase every good thing you dream your program might accomplish and then some. Conservatives are driven by what's best in the long term and what's going to do the most good for people. We don't hand out just fish, we hand out fishing poles and bait while we remove restrictions on where folks can fish. We also advocate that we not use government to pass out fish and poles because of the waste it creates in buying overpriced fish and handing out government designed poles. Who does the most good? The one who hands out fish, or the one who hands out fishing poles? Ask yourself, what happens next in each case...
Or increasing their corporate funding.... But we repeat ourselves...
Wow, what a bunch of leftist claptrap... So Government is now your vehicle of choice for delivery of charity? I hope not.
Government is the absolute worst way to do charity (OK, Maybe the Clinton Foundation is but follow me..).. There are places where government makes sense but everybody needs to understand that Government is the absolute worst way to spend money because of the waste involved. Government simply cannot be efficient and effective at the same time, it's too big. Charity (welfare, health care for poor etc.) is more efficiently and effectively done by smaller local groups depending on local donations. Such arrangements get you a better return on your dollars, provides more value to those receiving the charity are more effective and efficient because they are small..
So, if you goal is to get the best return on your Charity dollar, government should be last on your list of ways to provide it. For example, it's far more effective and efficient for *YOU* to show up at the homeless shelter with donations and offer to help hand out food, than just pay taxes and assume the government will fill the need.
Sure you do. We'll send you 3 million of them!
Oh... And don't forget the free upgrade to Windows 10.. Now sign this donation form so we can get the tax write-off.
At least not in an attempt to create a thriving colony. We might maintain a scientific outpost there, but it will be temporary structures, suitable for extended stays lasting a year or two, but not equipped to be self sufficient over longer terms. It will be forever dependent on regular re-supply. There is no other possible way. Think of it as a remote space station, just harder to get to. Think of it like the south pole station, only in a place that takes a year to get to, is colder, and you cannot ever go outside. We are NOT staying there.
Why? Because Mars is a horrible place. It has no radiation shielding to speak of, so you are going to be living under ground. It's *really* cold, so cold that it's going to take a LOT of energy to keep warm enough to survive. There is no atmosphere to speak of and what IS there is useless being nearly completely carbon dioxide. It's also very dusty which wreaks havoc with solar collectors, machinery and anything that moves. It's also pretty much barren of anything useful that we could collect and easily use. No dirt suitable for growing, no water, no organic materials or things we might grow food with. There might be some liquid water in the form of bine, but it's going to be really hard to collect and need serious processing to be drinkable or usable for growing stuff.
We are NOT going there to stay. We may visit, we may stay there for extended periods, but it will be temporary.