You can only slow it down as this train is being driven by the federal government with virtually unlimited power, money, and time.. All this stuff ( and more ) will eventually pass and our digital freedom goes out the door.
And yet for all it's great power and resources the federal government, like all governments, is a complex, inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy. They've made their laws and imposed their restrictions, now let them try and enforce them. History suggests that they will, at best, be only partially successful. Meanwhile, the federal government, with it's massive debts, wars and the looming entitlements crisis, will soon tire of playing rent-a-cop to Hollywood and the copyright cartels.
On an average, Americans drive about 25 miles each way.
There's a fly in that ointment. The larger western states, and especially California which is the largest car market in the United States, often feature commutes longer than 25 miles. In California commutes of 30+ miles one-way are routine for many people and even 60+ mile commutes are not uncommon. This is especially true in Southern California where people commute long distances to and from the Los Angeles area. It takes a while to get anywhere in California by car, it's not like back east where one can drive through three states in less than than three hours.
Look, you do what you want with your own money, but don't come crying to me when you're old and have nothing to show for it. As for me, I'll decide what I ought to be doing with mine. Enough said.
Blago was not wealthy, at least not by way of comparison to Mit Romney and other really wealthy politicians. Second, this doesn't work so well in the United States or Europe. Subtly and secrecy counts for more than simple threats here in the first world. Bribery still occurs here, of course, but it's covered beneath layers of political contributions, favors and tacit understandings of lucrative opportunities after the term in office is completed in exchange for loyalty, favorable treatment and preferential access while in office.
Depending upon the penalty for early withdrawal from the CD, price fluctuations in the underlying stock over a period of two years are still likely to be tolerable. In the meantime you're still receiving that 3-5% dividend. If you intend to roll your CDs over into new CDs as they mature anyway, the dividend paying stock begins to look even more attractive by way of comparison. If you're willing to take on even a bit more risk and have a 5+ year outlook, the big banks are becoming increasingly attractive. Instead of buying a CD from one of the big banks (Wells Fargo, Citi, JPMorgan) buy their common shares instead. The way things are going 20%+ growth over that time period, plus increased dividends are very possible and all for a relatively modest increased risk premium over the other old-economy dividend payers. Just remember that despite what the government says about inflation (leaving out "volatile" food and energy prices) the consumer price inflation is still running at 5-8%+ depending upon whom you ask. At these levels, taking on some added risk to build or even just to preserve capital is unavoidable. The old ways of retirees living off the equity in their homes, CDs and "safe" bonds are probably gone for good.
Quick, you're innocent -- which do you choose? Remember, jury trials are a crap-shoot to start with, and the dice are loaded against you if you're brown and poor.
Of course, none of this applies to the wealthy and powerful. They use their wealth, power and connections to "persuade" the prosecutor that he or she should "reconsider" the decision to file charges. In the less stable and developed nations of this world this policy is sometimes known as "Plata O Plomo" (translation from Spanish: you can accept the bribe and do as we say or be killed, your choice).
Dividend paying stocks and even some bonds, provided that one doesn't overpay for either, can be good alternatives to putting money into CDs. There are good dividend paying stocks in the 3-5% range with rates increasing to 7-13% for REITs and some MLPs. Granted, these investments demand a bit more scrutiny from the potential investor, but they can be a good alternative for those who require more than 1-3% and are willing to assume some modest risks to receive it. The alternative right now, as both you and others have pointed out, is a 100% chance of a small loss in either savings accounts or CDs. Another poster mentioned TIPS, but the yields on US Treasuries have been pushed so low by those looking to satisfy counter parties with collateral on other loans and continued sovereign buying that the prices relative to those yields remain relatively unattractive. In other words, buyers of US Treasuries are buying them for reasons in addition to and other than the need to realize returns (meager ones at that) on their cash.
There are many stable and well paying dividend stocks that return in the 3-5% range consistently over a 3-5 year period with minimal risk to principal (albeit with little or very modest growth potential). Electric utilities, big tobacco and blue chip consumer staples are the canonical examples in this category. An investment of $200 would be enough for at least a handful of common shares in these sorts of companies.
I paid $400 for my phone and am saving $200 over the life of the contract. And yes, I did factor the up-front cost of the phone into the calculation.
Did you include the forgone interest that could've been earned on the difference in principal between paying up front and paying over time less the amount of the increased monthly payments for the subsidized option over the life of the contract?
In other countries when you buy a phone subsidy-free you pay less per month. This is common sense, yet the US providers don't do it.
They don't do it because they don't have to. People still sign up for service and pay the higher monthly bills. This translates into more profits for the telecom companies offering these plans. It makes perfect sense once you view it from the standpoint of the telecom companies. Although even here in the US there's still a small advantage in having a non-subsidized phone. If the phone isn't subsidized, it's possible to get a month-to-month plan without an early termination fee. Granted, this is of scant advantage because switching carriers in the US often means that your old phone is useless because only AT&T and T-Mobile offer GSM phones while Verizon and Sprint continue to use CDMA which doesn't switch as well if it switches at all between carriers.
I'd rather pay full price for my phone and pay less per month.
From a strictly theoretical standpoint it would depend upon what the added monthly fee was compared to the upfront price of the phone. However, in practice a phone lease or rent-to-own situation, which is essentially what is happening with a subsidized phone contract, is often a worse deal over the term of the contract so you're right to look for ways to avoid that situation.
If a contact is messaged through iMessage doesn't also have iMessage and it goes through SMS does that count against your monthly text allotment or otherwise make it onto your bill? Thanks.
A significant percentage of them might want to use touch monitors.
Unlikely. The full sized touch monitor has always been relegated to niche uses. For example, we see them in Point of Sale, ATM and various forms of vending or other kiosk like setups. All of these devices, regardless of their internal components, are configured to run a single specialized application from which the user cannot, at least by design, deviate. Furthermore, these devices are almost always encountered in public places and are used by many different users for specific and time limited operations in that context. Compare that with more typical home or work use patterns where sessions are longer and the keyboard is generally kept within easy reach of the fingertips with the mouse in close proximity. This is an efficient setup for general computing use, whereas reaching across the desk to touch the screen repeatedly is not. Touch works in the hand-held and portable format because the use cases and ergonomics are almost completely different from those of the more traditional desktop. Will some people want to use touch screens as their desktop display(s)? Perhaps. Will those people represent a majority or even just a substantial minority of users? Almost certainly not.
The rest can ignore that and move on.
Based upon the reviews of the preview release, it's not that simple. The interface is designed to emphasize Metro, imposing itself at the expense of the traditional desktop and forcing users to wrestle with it in order to get their work done. This is particularly irksome in the desktop usage scenarios because few people would prefer a touch-based interface with a single full screen app at a time over the more traditional windowing system common in modern desktop operating systems. Indeed, the windowing systems now present in Windows 7, OSX and the various Linux distros represent decades of accumulated experience and feedback from professional, business, scientific and home users. A radical departure from this well defined and honed interface, ala Metro, is the height of hubris and foolishness. The traditional desktop users, who're still Microsoft's bread and butter, will punish them severely for missteps or other nonsense as they did with Vista (which was itself a less radical departure than Metro).
Microsoft would be well advised to tread cautiously here. It's alright to pursue new markets with new concepts. However, this must NOT be done at the expense of existing users, especially those with professional needs. If the new concepts have merit, they will stand on their own without forced attempts to get people into using them. Finally, to anyone from Microsoft reading this: Heed the warnings of the Win 8 / Metro reviewers and don't ignore them. Remember the lessons of Vista: users will NOT accept software that gets in their way and doesn't work how they want to work, no matter how innovative or cool you think it is. The desktop and mobile touch worlds are DIFFERENT and ought to be treated as such. Don't screw this up.
Another question that might reasonably be asked is, "Why should we make sacrifices?"
The simple truth of the matter, and one that almost nobody is willing to discuss publicly, is that at some point before the end of this century the world will have long since used up all of the cheap and easy to get at hydrocarbons. Absent some technological and scientific miracle, the gains of the Green Revolution and the global abundance of food that we presently enjoy will recede into memory as an aberration of history. When that happens, a substantial portion of the population will starve or perish in the resource wars that are sure to follow as population finds its new balance with the diminished carrying capacity of the Earth. Baring the aforementioned technological or scientific miracles, these outcomes are probably inevitable. It's not a question of if, but rather of when (and very likely beginning before the middle of this century). Thus, an argument can be made that sacrifices made now are meaningless and we should instead prepare ourselves to defend what's ours if wish to be counted among the survivors.
It will never completely run out, although it will eventually become uneconomical except for niche uses. For example, it's possible to convert sea water into jet fuel and other hydrocarbons through complex and energy intensive chemical reactions and it's possible to power these reactions with the sunlight that falls on the earth each day. Nobody does this right now because it's not cost effective. However, there's a big difference between rare and expensive hydrocarbons and none at all. My guess is that long before hydrocarbons become that expensive mankind will be well motivated to find ways of producing them artificially.
I have trouble finding anyone who's willing to attend a protest for something they believe in and support out of fear of "getting a record" or "getting on a list".
People fear this because it can and does happen. The economy is tough enough for young people who've worked hard and kept their noses clean. They don't call the occupy crowd "unemployable" for nothing you know.
then the idea that this tax credit is actually affecting you is a joke. Taxes have not gone up.
Taxes are high enough already and seeing the government hand out $7,500 checks to wealthy people to finance what is essentially a luxury purchase is obscene.
Congress gave the administration 2 months to approve the Keystone pipeline, knowing full well it wouldn't be enough time to complete an environmental investigation.
The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed in 2008. Is four years not enough time? That's government efficiency for you.
So the administration was given two choices: approve a potentially dangerous massive project or not approve it. It has nothing at all to do with blocking oil refinement and wanting to raise prices.
The problem with denying permits and delaying projects is that it creates additional market uncertainty and increases the ultimate cost of the project. Markets operate in large part upon sentiment and economic signals. Negative signals, such as denying permits or delaying projects with lengthy environmental reviews, increases economic risk and higher risk equals higher price. It's not a matter of "blocking" oil refinement, as by decree, but rather in how President Obama approaches this particular issue and indeed the economy in general. Uncertainty on Obama Care and health care costs, uncertainty on tax policy, uncertainty in completion of large and economically important projects. It's very difficult to run a business when you have no idea what your costs are going to be next year in the face of capricious and burdensome interference by government. Obama, who has never owned or run a business, doesn't seem to understand this. When it comes to the economy, Obama either doesn't get it or he doesn't care.
The consequences of the project must be researched first.
Meanwhile, millions of ordinary Americans are hurting and continue to suffer severe economic hardships. The last thing that ordinary Americans need right now is more pain at the pump. The working class, whom Obama claims to represent, are getting slammed while the urban environmental elites and even his own energy secretary tell us that high gas prices are a good thing. It just goes to show how disconnected they are from the economic situations of ordinary Americans.
Second, if you think Obama has no clear overall plan, it's because you're choosing not to read what they publish. How about looking at the budget proposal?
The Obama Administration has been operating without a formal budget for almost 4 years now, preferring instead to keep things running with continuing resolutions. Harry Reid could have used his position as Senate majority leader to secure passage of the budget in any of the last three years and yet for going on four years now that hasn't happened. Draw your own conclusions, but budgeting doesn't seem to be a high priority for this administration. The record increase in the US national debt under Obama's watch further cements his reputation for not caring much about budgeting or limiting spending.
Or the papers from the Secretary of Energy and others.
You mean Steven Chu? The guy who stood by and watched as half a billion taxpayer dollars were vaporized in the Solyndra debacle? Steven Chu is a scientist and like many scientists and academics he seems to have a rather stunning disregard for what things cost in the real world (a common feature of most Obama appointees). Chu's record as Secretary of Energy isn't something that future administrators should seek to emulate.
Edmunds says the Volt has the nicest and highest-quality interior they've seen in a Chevy
GM always knew that the Volt would be an expensive vehicle, purchased by the eco-elite as a green status symbol, not a mass market vehicle. This despite strenuous efforts by the Obama administration to portray the Volt as the "car of the future" for ordinary Americans, no doubt as part of an attempt to justify the auto-bailouts and pander to union auto workers. It was widely panned by the critics who correctly predicted that the vehicle would never be as popular as the Toyota Prius, which by the way has also been of relatively limited consumer interest when compared to sales of conventional vehicles (all hybrids, including Volt, Prius and all others supposedly represent less than 3% of vehicles driven on American roads). As for the $7,500 tax credit, it really irks me to see my tax dollars spent to subsidize rich people who want an eco-chic toy. I can tell you paying a bit less tax would be a huge help to me right now after nearly four years of Obama and this miserable economy. Instead, I have to watch smug limousine liberals drive around in their Volts. If they had any sympathy remaining for the common man, who's interests they always claim to represent, they wouldn't apply for the tax credit or they would donate it to the poor instead.
the president isn't playing dictator and directly controlling gas prices.
Really? Why then is the Keystone XL pipeline not being built? The materials are ready, the contractors want to build, the workers want to work and the end users want to buy the delivered oil. What could be the problem? Oh right, the Obama Administration denied the permit. It must be a "free" market when Obama can shutdown private enterprise with the stroke of a pen. Yes indeed, no problem there.
They want an open market for oil, which is exactly what we have today
Except that the supply side of the industry is heavily regulated. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has, through various policy choices and lack of a clear overall plan (we need the details Mr.President, not a speech about the high ideals of green energy), made exploration, extraction and delivery of oil to those markets more costly. The suggestion that the policies of the Obama Administration have nothing to do with high oil and gasoline prices is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who understands basic economics. Of course, this suggestion most often comes from the same people on the left who so consistently demonstrate their ignorance of that very subject.
It sounds like what you need is a good Home Owner's Association!
That's like living in the "People's Republic of Suburbia", complete with central committee (HOA board), secret police (rent-a-cops), and informants (nosy neighbors).
Why would the politicians bother to submit their bills without millions of dollars in donations to their re-election campaigns? I thought Washington was pay-to-play.
According to the other posters it was sold to CBS? I was aware that Paramount held the rights and produced the series for many years. They even started their own television network, UPN, just so that they would have somewhere to show them when and how they wanted. Did CBS not buy or acquire the rights?
Slashdot Mirror
You can only slow it down as this train is being driven by the federal government with virtually unlimited power, money, and time.. All this stuff ( and more ) will eventually pass and our digital freedom goes out the door.
And yet for all it's great power and resources the federal government, like all governments, is a complex, inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy. They've made their laws and imposed their restrictions, now let them try and enforce them. History suggests that they will, at best, be only partially successful. Meanwhile, the federal government, with it's massive debts, wars and the looming entitlements crisis, will soon tire of playing rent-a-cop to Hollywood and the copyright cartels.
On an average, Americans drive about 25 miles each way.
There's a fly in that ointment. The larger western states, and especially California which is the largest car market in the United States, often feature commutes longer than 25 miles. In California commutes of 30+ miles one-way are routine for many people and even 60+ mile commutes are not uncommon. This is especially true in Southern California where people commute long distances to and from the Los Angeles area. It takes a while to get anywhere in California by car, it's not like back east where one can drive through three states in less than than three hours.
Look, you do what you want with your own money, but don't come crying to me when you're old and have nothing to show for it. As for me, I'll decide what I ought to be doing with mine. Enough said.
Blago was not wealthy, at least not by way of comparison to Mit Romney and other really wealthy politicians. Second, this doesn't work so well in the United States or Europe. Subtly and secrecy counts for more than simple threats here in the first world. Bribery still occurs here, of course, but it's covered beneath layers of political contributions, favors and tacit understandings of lucrative opportunities after the term in office is completed in exchange for loyalty, favorable treatment and preferential access while in office.
Depending upon the penalty for early withdrawal from the CD, price fluctuations in the underlying stock over a period of two years are still likely to be tolerable. In the meantime you're still receiving that 3-5% dividend. If you intend to roll your CDs over into new CDs as they mature anyway, the dividend paying stock begins to look even more attractive by way of comparison. If you're willing to take on even a bit more risk and have a 5+ year outlook, the big banks are becoming increasingly attractive. Instead of buying a CD from one of the big banks (Wells Fargo, Citi, JPMorgan) buy their common shares instead. The way things are going 20%+ growth over that time period, plus increased dividends are very possible and all for a relatively modest increased risk premium over the other old-economy dividend payers. Just remember that despite what the government says about inflation (leaving out "volatile" food and energy prices) the consumer price inflation is still running at 5-8%+ depending upon whom you ask. At these levels, taking on some added risk to build or even just to preserve capital is unavoidable. The old ways of retirees living off the equity in their homes, CDs and "safe" bonds are probably gone for good.
"They" would be the ones with superior numbers and firepower. Does that answer your question?
Quick, you're innocent -- which do you choose? Remember, jury trials are a crap-shoot to start with, and the dice are loaded against you if you're brown and poor.
Of course, none of this applies to the wealthy and powerful. They use their wealth, power and connections to "persuade" the prosecutor that he or she should "reconsider" the decision to file charges. In the less stable and developed nations of this world this policy is sometimes known as "Plata O Plomo" (translation from Spanish: you can accept the bribe and do as we say or be killed, your choice).
Dividend paying stocks and even some bonds, provided that one doesn't overpay for either, can be good alternatives to putting money into CDs. There are good dividend paying stocks in the 3-5% range with rates increasing to 7-13% for REITs and some MLPs. Granted, these investments demand a bit more scrutiny from the potential investor, but they can be a good alternative for those who require more than 1-3% and are willing to assume some modest risks to receive it. The alternative right now, as both you and others have pointed out, is a 100% chance of a small loss in either savings accounts or CDs. Another poster mentioned TIPS, but the yields on US Treasuries have been pushed so low by those looking to satisfy counter parties with collateral on other loans and continued sovereign buying that the prices relative to those yields remain relatively unattractive. In other words, buyers of US Treasuries are buying them for reasons in addition to and other than the need to realize returns (meager ones at that) on their cash.
There are many stable and well paying dividend stocks that return in the 3-5% range consistently over a 3-5 year period with minimal risk to principal (albeit with little or very modest growth potential). Electric utilities, big tobacco and blue chip consumer staples are the canonical examples in this category. An investment of $200 would be enough for at least a handful of common shares in these sorts of companies.
I paid $400 for my phone and am saving $200 over the life of the contract. And yes, I did factor the up-front cost of the phone into the calculation.
Did you include the forgone interest that could've been earned on the difference in principal between paying up front and paying over time less the amount of the increased monthly payments for the subsidized option over the life of the contract?
In other countries when you buy a phone subsidy-free you pay less per month. This is common sense, yet the US providers don't do it.
They don't do it because they don't have to. People still sign up for service and pay the higher monthly bills. This translates into more profits for the telecom companies offering these plans. It makes perfect sense once you view it from the standpoint of the telecom companies. Although even here in the US there's still a small advantage in having a non-subsidized phone. If the phone isn't subsidized, it's possible to get a month-to-month plan without an early termination fee. Granted, this is of scant advantage because switching carriers in the US often means that your old phone is useless because only AT&T and T-Mobile offer GSM phones while Verizon and Sprint continue to use CDMA which doesn't switch as well if it switches at all between carriers.
I'd rather pay full price for my phone and pay less per month.
From a strictly theoretical standpoint it would depend upon what the added monthly fee was compared to the upfront price of the phone. However, in practice a phone lease or rent-to-own situation, which is essentially what is happening with a subsidized phone contract, is often a worse deal over the term of the contract so you're right to look for ways to avoid that situation.
If a contact is messaged through iMessage doesn't also have iMessage and it goes through SMS does that count against your monthly text allotment or otherwise make it onto your bill? Thanks.
A significant percentage of them might want to use touch monitors.
Unlikely. The full sized touch monitor has always been relegated to niche uses. For example, we see them in Point of Sale, ATM and various forms of vending or other kiosk like setups. All of these devices, regardless of their internal components, are configured to run a single specialized application from which the user cannot, at least by design, deviate. Furthermore, these devices are almost always encountered in public places and are used by many different users for specific and time limited operations in that context. Compare that with more typical home or work use patterns where sessions are longer and the keyboard is generally kept within easy reach of the fingertips with the mouse in close proximity. This is an efficient setup for general computing use, whereas reaching across the desk to touch the screen repeatedly is not. Touch works in the hand-held and portable format because the use cases and ergonomics are almost completely different from those of the more traditional desktop. Will some people want to use touch screens as their desktop display(s)? Perhaps. Will those people represent a majority or even just a substantial minority of users? Almost certainly not.
The rest can ignore that and move on.
Based upon the reviews of the preview release, it's not that simple. The interface is designed to emphasize Metro, imposing itself at the expense of the traditional desktop and forcing users to wrestle with it in order to get their work done. This is particularly irksome in the desktop usage scenarios because few people would prefer a touch-based interface with a single full screen app at a time over the more traditional windowing system common in modern desktop operating systems. Indeed, the windowing systems now present in Windows 7, OSX and the various Linux distros represent decades of accumulated experience and feedback from professional, business, scientific and home users. A radical departure from this well defined and honed interface, ala Metro, is the height of hubris and foolishness. The traditional desktop users, who're still Microsoft's bread and butter, will punish them severely for missteps or other nonsense as they did with Vista (which was itself a less radical departure than Metro).
Microsoft would be well advised to tread cautiously here. It's alright to pursue new markets with new concepts. However, this must NOT be done at the expense of existing users, especially those with professional needs. If the new concepts have merit, they will stand on their own without forced attempts to get people into using them. Finally, to anyone from Microsoft reading this: Heed the warnings of the Win 8 / Metro reviewers and don't ignore them. Remember the lessons of Vista: users will NOT accept software that gets in their way and doesn't work how they want to work, no matter how innovative or cool you think it is. The desktop and mobile touch worlds are DIFFERENT and ought to be treated as such. Don't screw this up.
Another question that might reasonably be asked is, "Why should we make sacrifices?"
The simple truth of the matter, and one that almost nobody is willing to discuss publicly, is that at some point before the end of this century the world will have long since used up all of the cheap and easy to get at hydrocarbons. Absent some technological and scientific miracle, the gains of the Green Revolution and the global abundance of food that we presently enjoy will recede into memory as an aberration of history. When that happens, a substantial portion of the population will starve or perish in the resource wars that are sure to follow as population finds its new balance with the diminished carrying capacity of the Earth. Baring the aforementioned technological or scientific miracles, these outcomes are probably inevitable. It's not a question of if, but rather of when (and very likely beginning before the middle of this century). Thus, an argument can be made that sacrifices made now are meaningless and we should instead prepare ourselves to defend what's ours if wish to be counted among the survivors.
Oil will run out
It will never completely run out, although it will eventually become uneconomical except for niche uses. For example, it's possible to convert sea water into jet fuel and other hydrocarbons through complex and energy intensive chemical reactions and it's possible to power these reactions with the sunlight that falls on the earth each day. Nobody does this right now because it's not cost effective. However, there's a big difference between rare and expensive hydrocarbons and none at all. My guess is that long before hydrocarbons become that expensive mankind will be well motivated to find ways of producing them artificially.
The proper generic name for such corporations is, by ancient usage, "mercenaries" or perhaps "mercenary contractors".
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I have trouble finding anyone who's willing to attend a protest for something they believe in and support out of fear of "getting a record" or "getting on a list".
People fear this because it can and does happen. The economy is tough enough for young people who've worked hard and kept their noses clean. They don't call the occupy crowd "unemployable" for nothing you know.
then the idea that this tax credit is actually affecting you is a joke. Taxes have not gone up.
Taxes are high enough already and seeing the government hand out $7,500 checks to wealthy people to finance what is essentially a luxury purchase is obscene.
Congress gave the administration 2 months to approve the Keystone pipeline, knowing full well it wouldn't be enough time to complete an environmental investigation.
The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed in 2008. Is four years not enough time? That's government efficiency for you.
So the administration was given two choices: approve a potentially dangerous massive project or not approve it. It has nothing at all to do with blocking oil refinement and wanting to raise prices.
The problem with denying permits and delaying projects is that it creates additional market uncertainty and increases the ultimate cost of the project. Markets operate in large part upon sentiment and economic signals. Negative signals, such as denying permits or delaying projects with lengthy environmental reviews, increases economic risk and higher risk equals higher price. It's not a matter of "blocking" oil refinement, as by decree, but rather in how President Obama approaches this particular issue and indeed the economy in general. Uncertainty on Obama Care and health care costs, uncertainty on tax policy, uncertainty in completion of large and economically important projects. It's very difficult to run a business when you have no idea what your costs are going to be next year in the face of capricious and burdensome interference by government. Obama, who has never owned or run a business, doesn't seem to understand this. When it comes to the economy, Obama either doesn't get it or he doesn't care.
The consequences of the project must be researched first.
Meanwhile, millions of ordinary Americans are hurting and continue to suffer severe economic hardships. The last thing that ordinary Americans need right now is more pain at the pump. The working class, whom Obama claims to represent, are getting slammed while the urban environmental elites and even his own energy secretary tell us that high gas prices are a good thing. It just goes to show how disconnected they are from the economic situations of ordinary Americans.
Second, if you think Obama has no clear overall plan, it's because you're choosing not to read what they publish. How about looking at the budget proposal?
The Obama Administration has been operating without a formal budget for almost 4 years now, preferring instead to keep things running with continuing resolutions. Harry Reid could have used his position as Senate majority leader to secure passage of the budget in any of the last three years and yet for going on four years now that hasn't happened. Draw your own conclusions, but budgeting doesn't seem to be a high priority for this administration. The record increase in the US national debt under Obama's watch further cements his reputation for not caring much about budgeting or limiting spending.
Or the papers from the Secretary of Energy and others.
You mean Steven Chu? The guy who stood by and watched as half a billion taxpayer dollars were vaporized in the Solyndra debacle? Steven Chu is a scientist and like many scientists and academics he seems to have a rather stunning disregard for what things cost in the real world (a common feature of most Obama appointees). Chu's record as Secretary of Energy isn't something that future administrators should seek to emulate.
Edmunds says the Volt has the nicest and highest-quality interior they've seen in a Chevy
GM always knew that the Volt would be an expensive vehicle, purchased by the eco-elite as a green status symbol, not a mass market vehicle. This despite strenuous efforts by the Obama administration to portray the Volt as the "car of the future" for ordinary Americans, no doubt as part of an attempt to justify the auto-bailouts and pander to union auto workers. It was widely panned by the critics who correctly predicted that the vehicle would never be as popular as the Toyota Prius, which by the way has also been of relatively limited consumer interest when compared to sales of conventional vehicles (all hybrids, including Volt, Prius and all others supposedly represent less than 3% of vehicles driven on American roads). As for the $7,500 tax credit, it really irks me to see my tax dollars spent to subsidize rich people who want an eco-chic toy. I can tell you paying a bit less tax would be a huge help to me right now after nearly four years of Obama and this miserable economy. Instead, I have to watch smug limousine liberals drive around in their Volts. If they had any sympathy remaining for the common man, who's interests they always claim to represent, they wouldn't apply for the tax credit or they would donate it to the poor instead.
the president isn't playing dictator and directly controlling gas prices.
Really? Why then is the Keystone XL pipeline not being built? The materials are ready, the contractors want to build, the workers want to work and the end users want to buy the delivered oil. What could be the problem? Oh right, the Obama Administration denied the permit. It must be a "free" market when Obama can shutdown private enterprise with the stroke of a pen. Yes indeed, no problem there.
They want an open market for oil, which is exactly what we have today
Except that the supply side of the industry is heavily regulated. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has, through various policy choices and lack of a clear overall plan (we need the details Mr.President, not a speech about the high ideals of green energy), made exploration, extraction and delivery of oil to those markets more costly. The suggestion that the policies of the Obama Administration have nothing to do with high oil and gasoline prices is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who understands basic economics. Of course, this suggestion most often comes from the same people on the left who so consistently demonstrate their ignorance of that very subject.
Unless you have already given up and you are just waiting for the day it completely falls apart.
I've taken steps to prepare for that eventuality, it may still come to that sooner or later.
It sounds like what you need is a good Home Owner's Association!
That's like living in the "People's Republic of Suburbia", complete with central committee (HOA board), secret police (rent-a-cops), and informants (nosy neighbors).
Why would the politicians bother to submit their bills without millions of dollars in donations to their re-election campaigns? I thought Washington was pay-to-play.
According to the other posters it was sold to CBS? I was aware that Paramount held the rights and produced the series for many years. They even started their own television network, UPN, just so that they would have somewhere to show them when and how they wanted. Did CBS not buy or acquire the rights?