How can I be upset that the EPA wants to tie up companies in "red tape" when this is happening in our country? Why don't the solar companies get the same red tape? Oh, right, they don't produce a byproduct that is often dumped in nearby water. I'm sure the site of solar panel farms suffers the same environmental scrutiny that your poor "hobbled" coal and nuclear power facilities face. It's just that the byproducts and environmental effects appear to be okay for local residents.
I doubt the local Chinese residents are all that happy with it, but their government won't let them talk about it.
Remember NIMBY is the same as OITBY (only in their back yard).
I see nothing hypocritical about con men doing the same as government officials.
Is hypocrisy supposed to be the single unforgivable sin or something? Either way, con man or politician (am I repeating myself?), it is my paycheck they are robbing the money from. If you have an environment ripe for theft, you don't just throw your hands up and say, "Oh well, I didn't steal as much as that guy." You change or eliminate the environment.
Energy is expensive. If solar is a good deal, businesses WILL flock to it. It makes sense for the federal government to invest in solar research, in support of its constitutionally mandate duty of running a military. Military outposts would LOVE to eliminate the liability and logistical nightmare of fuel dumps. But the current subsidy environment is nothing more that kickbacks to special interest groups.
And if you knew anything about modern history, you wouldn't accept the tax increases either. Bush 1's "Read My Lip's" doctrine fell to a promise from Democrats to cut spending. Bush was left looking foolish. Reagan agreed to raise taxes after an agreement with Tip ONeal to cut spending. Reagan got credit for a huge tax hike, and spending continued unabated.
I wouldn't give an inch until I saw some real spending cuts.
Speaking of which (and all this talk about compromise), just what spending cuts has the Great Man-Child in the Whitehouse proposed?
MSNBC: Tea Partiers are FOOLS. Obama offered them shit and they turned him down. Idiots. CNN: It is obvious the Tea Party doesn't understand how things work. That was some nice brown shit they turned down. NightLine: Are Tea Party candidates closet shit eaters? Rachel Maddow: The Tea Party won't eat SHIT! Are they crazy? Everybody likes SHIT!
You're saying they're villains, because they refuse to buy into the same smoke an mirrors the career politicians have been pushing for the last 30 yrs.
Are you one of those strange types that enjoy being lied to?
This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something.
Either you don't have a job, or haven't looked at your paycheck lately.
We're trying to balance the books. That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue.
To continue with the sexual assault analogy, let's say you work the corner of Main and 5th St. One particular patron got his service last week and then ran away. I mean, he promised that he would pay up at the end, but he didn't. And your pimp beat the snot out of you for not getting him his money. Do you trust the John when he comes around the second time, or do you demand to see the money up front?
Considering what previous Congresses have done, why are the Tea Party politicians reticent in their duties for demanding to see the cuts before agreeing to give up their services?
You can't loose weight unless you consume less calories than you take in. You'll have us believe that we can make a promise to see a nutritionist in a few years, at which time we'll go on a sensible calorie deficit diet, and everything will work out fine.
There's a term for people that think that way, morbidly obese, an apt description of the federal government.
That's FEDERAL tax. Now add State tax, county tax, city tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax and fees for any service that you actually get from the government.
The Tea Party is advocating that we've alway looked at the revenue side, and it is high time we actually make some of those budge cuts that everyone is always promising. And going from spending 40% more than you make to only spending 20% more than you make still leaves you in the hole.
It's also worth pointing out that Obama and the moderate Republicans aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall. The people in Washington who actually have a functioning set of synapses between their ears realize that the only way to balance the books is to decrease spending at the same time as increasing income.
Citation needed. A quote from the President's plan would be a good start. Mostly what has been put forward is raise taxes now, reduce spending later. This approach has been tried. Several time. The spending never gets reduced.
The Tea Party is standing up and saying, "Enough, dammit! We don't have any money left. No more promises of we'll get to it later. Cut spending NOW, before we give you any more money."
What boggles the mind is the so-called educated on this forum that can't grasp the idea that you can't spend more than you make forever.
But, really, we'll settle for him getting a friggin' clue.
Have you heard how Karl Rove talks about the Tea Party. He can't STAND those people, which is understandable considering how they've upset his apple-cart.
I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once.
You're forgetting how Reagan struck a deal with Tip O'Neal. In exchange for the tax hikes Reagan agreed to, there would be tax cuts. We got the taxes raised, but the cuts never came. "their way or nothing" translates to we ACTUALLY get the cuts before we raise the taxes. You've heard the cliche, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.", right?
The political reality, which McCain and the WSJ are all to quick to ignore, is that if the TP gives in, there will never be a tax cut and the FEDERAL government will continue to borrow and grow. Their intransigence IS the balance.
That's ok, because they all see you as stupid, annoying, don't really add anything at all in the way of ideas, and ultimately responsible for the destruction of the Republic. At least we can all agree on something.
"They" didn't choose Republicans. First of all, they didn't organize tightly for the express purpose of making the "they" more difficult to apply. The individual chapters are tied together with nothing more than common ideals. Second, about 30% of those identifying with the Tea Party voted for Obama. It was the Man-Child in chief that constantly chose to denigrate them, because they represent a force that is looking to take his major power away, the ability to tax in order to buy votes with.
The Tea Party didn't choose Republicans. People who associate themselves with smaller government were rejected by Democrats.
His call to "spread the wealth" isn't far left through government confiscation? Nationalizing health care isn't far left? His constant campaigning against anyone more right than himself isn't far left? The appointment of left-wing wacko's like Van Jones isn't far left?
Slashdot Mirror
Another speech. The Congressional Budge Office has already stated that they don't score speeches.
guess what..... we're *still* a novelty
Wanna know why?
We later augmented them with a wind generator ... which helped the refrigeration system make enough ice per day for two drinks
It is a small subset of the population that would call this "working".
That being said, this is so cool, I wanna have your baby.
How can I be upset that the EPA wants to tie up companies in "red tape" when this is happening in our country? Why don't the solar companies get the same red tape? Oh, right, they don't produce a byproduct that is often dumped in nearby water. I'm sure the site of solar panel farms suffers the same environmental scrutiny that your poor "hobbled" coal and nuclear power facilities face. It's just that the byproducts and environmental effects appear to be okay for local residents.
I doubt the local Chinese residents are all that happy with it, but their government won't let them talk about it.
Remember NIMBY is the same as OITBY (only in their back yard).
I see nothing hypocritical about con men doing the same as government officials.
Is hypocrisy supposed to be the single unforgivable sin or something? Either way, con man or politician (am I repeating myself?), it is my paycheck they are robbing the money from. If you have an environment ripe for theft, you don't just throw your hands up and say, "Oh well, I didn't steal as much as that guy." You change or eliminate the environment.
Energy is expensive. If solar is a good deal, businesses WILL flock to it. It makes sense for the federal government to invest in solar research, in support of its constitutionally mandate duty of running a military. Military outposts would LOVE to eliminate the liability and logistical nightmare of fuel dumps. But the current subsidy environment is nothing more that kickbacks to special interest groups.
Whooosh!!
No, but they do understand how they got in office.
Hint: it isn't the primary purpose of industry.
The measure where you can tell how many votes you will get by approving a particular subsidy.
If they were talking about taking your "gubmint" check and making you get off your ass and fend for yourself, you'd be pissed, too.
Governments are comprised of the people.
Governments are comprised of a subset of the people, that more often than not put their own interest above that of others.
And if you knew anything about modern history, you wouldn't accept the tax increases either. Bush 1's "Read My Lip's" doctrine fell to a promise from Democrats to cut spending. Bush was left looking foolish. Reagan agreed to raise taxes after an agreement with Tip ONeal to cut spending. Reagan got credit for a huge tax hike, and spending continued unabated.
I wouldn't give an inch until I saw some real spending cuts.
Speaking of which (and all this talk about compromise), just what spending cuts has the Great Man-Child in the Whitehouse proposed?
You forgot:
MSNBC: Tea Partiers are FOOLS. Obama offered them shit and they turned him down. Idiots.
CNN: It is obvious the Tea Party doesn't understand how things work. That was some nice brown shit they turned down.
NightLine: Are Tea Party candidates closet shit eaters?
Rachel Maddow: The Tea Party won't eat SHIT! Are they crazy? Everybody likes SHIT!
You're saying they're villains, because they refuse to buy into the same smoke an mirrors the career politicians have been pushing for the last 30 yrs.
Are you one of those strange types that enjoy being lied to?
This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something.
Either you don't have a job, or haven't looked at your paycheck lately.
We're trying to balance the books. That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue.
To continue with the sexual assault analogy, let's say you work the corner of Main and 5th St. One particular patron got his service last week and then ran away. I mean, he promised that he would pay up at the end, but he didn't. And your pimp beat the snot out of you for not getting him his money. Do you trust the John when he comes around the second time, or do you demand to see the money up front?
Considering what previous Congresses have done, why are the Tea Party politicians reticent in their duties for demanding to see the cuts before agreeing to give up their services?
All that says is that the Democrats have better press agents. No small wonder given how much of the press is on their side.
I have started seeing some independent commercials lately. Those numbers *may* start to swing very soon now.
You can't loose weight unless you consume less calories than you take in. You'll have us believe that we can make a promise to see a nutritionist in a few years, at which time we'll go on a sensible calorie deficit diet, and everything will work out fine.
There's a term for people that think that way, morbidly obese, an apt description of the federal government.
That's FEDERAL tax. Now add State tax, county tax, city tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax and fees for any service that you actually get from the government.
The Tea Party is advocating that we've alway looked at the revenue side, and it is high time we actually make some of those budge cuts that everyone is always promising. And going from spending 40% more than you make to only spending 20% more than you make still leaves you in the hole.
It's also worth pointing out that Obama and the moderate Republicans aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall. The people in Washington who actually have a functioning set of synapses between their ears realize that the only way to balance the books is to decrease spending at the same time as increasing income.
Citation needed. A quote from the President's plan would be a good start. Mostly what has been put forward is raise taxes now, reduce spending later. This approach has been tried. Several time. The spending never gets reduced.
The Tea Party is standing up and saying, "Enough, dammit! We don't have any money left. No more promises of we'll get to it later. Cut spending NOW, before we give you any more money."
What boggles the mind is the so-called educated on this forum that can't grasp the idea that you can't spend more than you make forever.
There are a LOT of people that have tried to start small businesses that would vehemently disagree with you about both the cost and effect.
But, really, we'll settle for him getting a friggin' clue.
Have you heard how Karl Rove talks about the Tea Party. He can't STAND those people, which is understandable considering how they've upset his apple-cart.
So where is the President's list of spending cuts for his side of the compromise?
I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once.
You're forgetting how Reagan struck a deal with Tip O'Neal. In exchange for the tax hikes Reagan agreed to, there would be tax cuts. We got the taxes raised, but the cuts never came. "their way or nothing" translates to we ACTUALLY get the cuts before we raise the taxes. You've heard the cliche, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.", right?
The political reality, which McCain and the WSJ are all to quick to ignore, is that if the TP gives in, there will never be a tax cut and the FEDERAL government will continue to borrow and grow. Their intransigence IS the balance.
That's ok, because they all see you as stupid, annoying, don't really add anything at all in the way of ideas, and ultimately responsible for the destruction of the Republic. At least we can all agree on something.
Tea Party supporters are living a fairy tale, but continuing to spend 40% more than you makes all the sense in the world?
I see.
"They" didn't choose Republicans. First of all, they didn't organize tightly for the express purpose of making the "they" more difficult to apply. The individual chapters are tied together with nothing more than common ideals. Second, about 30% of those identifying with the Tea Party voted for Obama. It was the Man-Child in chief that constantly chose to denigrate them, because they represent a force that is looking to take his major power away, the ability to tax in order to buy votes with.
The Tea Party didn't choose Republicans. People who associate themselves with smaller government were rejected by Democrats.
His call to "spread the wealth" isn't far left through government confiscation? Nationalizing health care isn't far left? His constant campaigning against anyone more right than himself isn't far left? The appointment of left-wing wacko's like Van Jones isn't far left?
I don't think you've been paying close attention.