|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563 |
Quote:
My concern is this:
He said that small businesses will get a $4K tax break for hiring a someone. So unless that person only needs to get paid $4K for the entire year, the small business will be losing money once you figure in their salary.
I'm not sure a small tax break will help small business owners justify bringing someone on board if the work they do doesn't pay for their costs.
Ha,, I own and operate a temp service. so unless there is some caviat (and I expect there to be) I'll make out like a bandit on this deal
I hire someone at 20 bucks an hour., I charge a client 30 bucks an hour for them.. I make out on the hourly pretty well but then I get a 4k tax break on top of that?  YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 
I see your point on that, but nobody is going to hire anyone if they can't afford to hire someone, and has a need for another person.. so this becomes an incentive to do it now.
No businessman on this planet will hire someone that gotta pay just to get a tax credit.. that would be idiot.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563 |
Quote:
The minute I heard archlibs going after him for not being tougher in opposition to the Repubs, I knew he was in trouble. Nowadays, it seems that everyone is spoiling for a fight every day, and that compromise isn't an option.
Ha,, the really funny thing (well, really not funny Ha Ha) is that on this very board, whenever I mentioned that all action should start in the middle and work it's way left and right of center to achieve balance. (another way of saying compromise) I got beat on by folks saying compromise is weak leadership and we need strong leadership,,
As if finding solutions to our nations problems could EVER be confused with being weak?
This week being the 10th anniversary there are a ton of programs and various film clips about the attacks of 9/11,, everywhere you look there are signs talking about how strong we are, "united we stand" or "we will not forget" etc etc.. very much heart wrenching stuff and things I know are true.
but our freaking politicians can only bicker.. All they want to do is divide us so they can get away with murder..
what's worse, we're letting them...
Geesh,, we're idiots..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Basically people who have enough money, shouldn't be receiving it.
So, those who were frugal and lived without luxuries and impulse buys because they were wise enough to put something away for retirement.....shouldn't get back some of what they paid into the system for their entire working life?
With the way things are going, that is exactly what will happen, except everyone will be in the same boat and they all will not be receiving any money back from what they put into the system.
I don't see your point Tux. How do the people who put money into the system not deserve some of the money that they get out? Isn't Social Security Tax based on how much income you make anyway. So if you make 80K you put in more than someone making 40K? If anything, the people putting in more deserve it more than the people that don't put in as much.
Where's the incentive to save money, if that means that you aren't going to get social security anyway?
Sorry holmes, people who put money into the social security system (and save for their own retirement) deserve it just as much as everyone else who does. Don't penalize people for success and common sense
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
whenever I mentioned that all action should start in the middle and work it's way left and right of center to achieve balance. (another way of saying compromise) I got beat on by folks saying compromise is weak leadership and we need strong leadership,,
Hey, I'm one of those people. 
Compromise isn't weak leadership, caving and calling it compromise is weak leadership. As a construction manager I negotiate compromise all the time.. the sub wants $X to change from a less expensive brick to a more expensive brick, I think it's worth less, $Y. In the interest of getting the job done and keeping the owner happy, we have to reach an agreement so we compromise and end up with a number in the middle (usually closer to mine..  ) where the client gets the better brick at a more reasonable price than what the sub wanted.
In government one side wants more spending, the other wants less spending... one side wants to raise taxes for more income the other side wants to lower taxes for less income... so they compromise and raise spending and lower taxes so we have less money coming in and more money going out but both sides can go back to their consitutuents and say they won the "compromise".... 
I do a lot of mediation and arbitration work for construction jobs with unresolvable issues.. this is the legal version of achieving "compromise".. and I can tell you there is a commonly held belief in mediation that if both sides are unhappy with the result, it was probably a fair outcome. Politics is different, in their compromise usually both sides walk out happy and claiming victory, that means we are screwed.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,046
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,046 |
Quote:
Quote:
Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prescription prices like the VA does. The guy suggested that Medicare could save about $250 billion over 10 years by changing the law so they could negotiate prices. That seems like something that everyone could, and should get behind. It is sensible, and saves taxpayer money without a drop in service.
Surely your not suggesting that we take our tax money away from some politician's poker buddy who runs a pharm. company, are you? 
Yep.
And I don't care if it is Republicans or Democrats who lose their pet supporters. These people are supposed to be there to do work for their constituents, and to serve the interests of the United States.
It would be nice if we had some way of reminding them of this fact.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I heard an interesting comment today .... agree to pay all politicians maybe even a few times more than they make now ... but pay them in futures.
You're term is from 2008 until 2010? Then you'll be paid for that term... but maybe only a tiny stipend which is barely enough to live on. Then you will be rewarded and paid as a percentage of how much the economy grew from 2008 through 2010 until perhaps 2018 until 2020.
The question isn't about taking money away from the moneygrubbing politicians ... if you do that then all of the smart people will just become money grubbing private workers and the public sector will only have the dummies who aren't smart enough to earn big money elsewhere.
What we need to do is make sure we pay them a lot AS LONG AS they earn it. Align their interests of making money with our interests of having long term success as a nation ... and I bet they will care a little more about unemployment, the stock market, the housing index, and tax rates (and etc.).
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563 |
Quote:
Compromise isn't weak leadership, caving and calling it compromise is weak leadership.
You say potAto and I say Potaaato (I can say it, but spelling it has proven to be a bit of a challenge)
Define caving? In every negotition there is give and take, sometimes to get something you think is important, you give up something else. you have to decide what's more important.
I ain't buying your explaination, I just think that if you want to fix america,, you have to realize that there are a ton of good ideas. you can't just say, yours are the best and the other side is wrong all the time. It's just not reasonable,, nor is it really possible.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
You're term is from 2008 until 2010? Then you'll be paid for that term... but maybe only a tiny stipend which is barely enough to live on. Then you will be rewarded and paid as a percentage of how much the economy grew from 2008 through 2010 until perhaps 2018 until 2020.
That would be a terrible idea IMO ... and part of the problem we have now. Most these guys get elected on the premise of "how the economy is doing now", so rather than make tough decisions that might hurt in the short term, but eventually put the country in a better position for the long run ... they cut taxes, raise spending, create a bunch of temporary "government" jobs, extended failing industries, prop up "bubble" markets that are supposed to be failing, etc, etc, etc. Part of a free market system is natural corrections and downcycles ... yet the government tries to spend it's way out of these cycles, mostly in the name of getting re-elected.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Ok ... maybe I didn't word it correctly, but the point was to pay them in a sort of "futures" contracts that they aren't paid for their time served, they are paid based upon what happens 10 years after their term. The problem would be finding out how to quantify a person's successes and failures (were they solely to blame rather or was it a group success or failure?), but to take a benchmark of something like how much the stock market grew over a decade and then reward them based upon long term growth and NOT the short term success.
I realize I'm not doing it justice, but the whole point was about doing away with exactly what you say. Don't allow them to be rewarded unless it promotes long term growth. And then if they set the country up for decades of success, who cares if they make more?
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
Using part of a proven bad idea in the name of "compromise" is borderline idiocy.
You continue your "give it time" line when ever Obama does something. Then you throw in a token "the Repubs have offered similar ideas' crap. You claim it is just because people don't like Obama.
When are you going to get off the fence and realize that people make decisions on facts. Obama like him or not is incompetent and very detrimental to the survival of this country. If you can't see this looking at what he has done, you need help.
You said above "we are all idiots'.....maybe you should speak for yourself.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Define caving? In every negotition there is give and take, sometimes to get something you think is important, you give up something else. you have to decide what's more important.
Exactly, I give up hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful spending in your district even though I said I would fight wasteful spending so that you will give up hundreds of millions of dollars of wasteful spending in my district so we can both buy off our constituents... yea compromise.
Because we have both decided what is most important and that is for both of us to get re-elected. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,186
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,186 |
Quote:
"When are you going to get off the fence..."
Quote:
You said above "we are all idiots'.....maybe you should speak for yourself.
This right here is a prime example of what I talked about in my post, Dam. It never freakkin' fails.
Time for me to get out now... before posters I really like start pissing me off.
Again.
Can't do the political threads, Dawg. I try... but they're just outside my wheelhouse. Too much "Us and Them" (love me some Pink Floyd '73) for this "fence-sitter"....
[shakes head slowly]
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Quote:
Quote:
Same ol same ol. Pass the bill and Ill let you know later how we'll pay for it.
Empty.
"We need to spend $400 billion today. Next week I'll show you the cuts we will make to pay for it."
........Next week comes........
We will cut spending by $400 billion dollars, starting today. A $1 dollar cut today, to be followed by an additional $10 cut next year. And by 2042, this one time Jobs bill will be paid for through cuts. Just like the 900 billion stimulus bill will be paid for by cuts - cuts someone else will make at a later date."
Meanwhile, our deficit and debt increase daily. So much for "cuts".
Oops - I was wrong. I admit it. My bad.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-asks-congress-467-billion-tax-increase-fund-173822213.html
The Obama administration is asking Congress to raise taxes by $467 billion over 10 years to pay for the President’s one-year $447 billion stimulus, which he announced during a speech Thursday before a joint session of Congress.
The president is pushing his jobs and growth package amid declining polls and zero job growth in August. The plan is intended to take effect several months after the 2012 election.
During a Rose Garden press event Monday, Obama pitched his plan by playing up job losses and the stalled economy, ditching his previous claims that economic growth had returned. “If Congress does not act, just about every family will pay more taxes next year. That would be a self-inflicted wound that our economy can’t afford right now, Obama said. (RELATED: Is Obama’s jobs plan really bipartisan?)
The changed campaign-trail rhetoric is part of Obama’s efforts to blame Congress, and the GOP specifically, for hindering economic growth. “If you want Congress to take action, I’m going to need everybody here … to make sure their voices are heard” by legislators.
Obama did not mention the $447 billion price tag for the one-year stimulus he outlined in his Rose Garden appearance.
White House budget chief Jack Lew said at a midday press conference that the 10-year tax bite would include $3 billion from the corporate jet sector, $40 billion from the oil and gas sector and $18 billion from Wall Street’s investment-fund managers, starting in 2013.
The majority of the tax increase comes from $400 billion generated by curbing tax exemptions available to families earning more than $250,000 per year, and to individuals earning more than $200,000 per year, he said.
The White House will send Obama’s tax proposal to Congress today, Lew said.
Next week the president will also submit a list of deficit-cutting proposals to the congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, Lew said. The committee was established by the August debt-ceiling deal, and is expected to cut $1.5 trillion from planned deficit spending of more than $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The White House’s proposal will “overachieve” the $1.5 trillion goal, and will not include the tax-raising proposals introduced today, said Lew.
The tax increase will not harm the economy in the short term, White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted today. “It will not harm job creation, “ he told reporters.
Lew said the tax increases, which he dubbed “pay-fors,” would not come into force until 2013. That’s several months after the 2012 presidential election.
Asked why the administration believes anti-tax GOP legislators will endorse a plan to increase Americans’ taxes, Lew said the package is “a balanced approach to shared sacrifice.”
“The president is asking Congress to make choices … because we don’t have the capacity to pay for everything,” Carney added.
I said - well, check the top of this post. Apparently when O said this new stimulus bill was paid for, and he'd tell us how next week - what he meant was it WASN'T paid for. But if he can only raise taxes for the next 10 years, it will be paid for.
Pass my bill, now, immediately. It's paid for. He said.
He had no bill at the time. It wasn't "paid" for. The only solution he has is to raise taxes over the next 10 years to pay for it.
Haven't we tried almost $1 trillion in "stimulus" - just about a year ago? That didn't work. That wasn't "paid" for - but now we need to spend another $467 billion in stimulus? Right now. That's "paid for" as we were told, but now know it's not "paid for"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Just to highlight a few sentences from the article:
". “If Congress does not act, just about every family will pay more taxes next year. That would be a self-inflicted wound that our economy can’t afford right now, Obama said"
Wait - if congress doesn't act - just about every family will pay more in taxes next year???????? Only about half the families pay federal income tax NOW. But let me get this straight: If congress doesn't vote to spend money it doesn't have, it will cost just about everyone more in taxes, but apparently if congress agrees to spend money it doesn't have, it WON'T cause higher taxes? Do I have that right?
"White House budget chief Jack Lew said at a midday press conference that the 10-year tax bite would include $3 billion from the corporate jet sector, $40 billion from the oil and gas sector and $18 billion from Wall Street’s investment-fund managers, starting in 2013."
Buzz words. 3 billion from the corporate jet sector (what exactly is that????) 40 billion from oil and gas (hello higher gas prices and home heating costs), and 18 billion from "wall streets investment fund managers". At least he hit all the buzz words. He got corporate jet, oil, gas, and wall street. Makes a good sound bite. But even that adds up to - wait for it - 61 billion. He still needs $406 billion to "pay" for this stimulus bill that should be passed immediately, according to him.
"The majority of the tax increase comes from $400 billion generated by curbing tax exemptions available to families earning more than $250,000 per year, and to individuals earning more than $200,000 per year, he said."
Oh. So now we see that the millionaires and billionaires, the corporate jet sector, etc - you know, the really, really rich evil bastards that everyone wants to hate - by golly, it includes a guy or lady that makes $200,000, or a couple that make $250,000.
"The committee was established by the August debt-ceiling deal, and is expected to cut $1.5 trillion from planned deficit spending of more than $7 trillion over the next 10 years"
We're getting brave. We're "going" to cut 1.5 trillion of our deficit spending (not debt) over the next 10 years?
We just spent almost a trillion in stimulus last year. Now we want another basically half a trillion for this year - to be paid for over 10 years by people making over $200,000.
I have a question for you all: Exactly WHEN will this gov't. actually CUT spending?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
And just for the jerks - when I say "when will this gov't. actually cut spending", what I mean is OUR gov't. I'm not saying only O - I'm not saying republicans, or democrats. What I'm saying is: When will our elected officials start caring about spending?
Our problem isn't taxes - our problem is the spending.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Buzz words. 3 billion from the corporate jet sector (what exactly is that????) 40 billion from oil and gas (hello higher gas prices and home heating costs), and 18 billion from "wall streets investment fund managers". At least he hit all the buzz words. He got corporate jet, oil, gas, and wall street. Makes a good sound bite.
Yep, definitely hit all of the groups that people, especially the left, love to hate. As for the corporate jet sector, it has to do with how you can depreciate corporate and private jets and forces you to depreciate them slower because then the government gets to make more money.. and this is vitally important too because $3 billion will pay .02% of our $14 trillion debt... but hey, it makes for a great soundbite. Afterall, who wants to defend a business or a businessman who actually owns his own plane.
Quote:
"The majority of the tax increase comes from $400 billion generated by curbing tax exemptions available to families earning more than $250,000 per year, and to individuals earning more than $200,000 per year, he said."
Oh. So now we see that the millionaires and billionaires, the corporate jet sector, etc - you know, the really, really rich evil bastards that everyone wants to hate - by golly, it includes a guy or lady that makes $200,000, or a couple that make $250,000.
Yea, this is where they resort to quoting Warren Buffet, problem is that he was speaking of billionaires, he used the phrase "mega-rich" more than once, he spoke of people who make MILLIONS annually... he wasn't necessarily talking about a dentist or an attorney that makes a few hundred grand a year... Remember when Obama's definition of "rich" in the campaign started at $500K/year, then went to $300K/year, then settled in somewhere around $200-250K/year? It went down once a week, evidently he was searching for that point where his base actually started to think.. "You know, if he comes any lower, he will be talking about me."
It is also good to know that you can run your finances this way arch. You can go borrow $200,000 tomorrow but as long as you promise to pay it back in 10 years, you haven't increased your debt and it's really all "paid for"... it's just paid for with money you don't have yet.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,264
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,264 |
Quote:
The Obama administration is asking Congress to raise taxes by $467 billion over 10 years to pay for the President’s one-year $447 billion stimulus, which he announced during a speech Thursday before a joint session of Congress.
So, this as of yet unwritten bill will require 10 years of taxpayer funding? My gosh, we have to pass it NOW! How does he sleep at night?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
How does he sleep at night?
Very well, I imagine. I'd venture to guess that the White House has some nice bedding. The added security of knowing that he'll have a lucrative career after the White House due to all the money he made for vested interests probably helps like a warm glass of milk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,804
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,804 |
I'm at the point that I want them to cut funding to everything. Start with their own payroll. Then foreign aide. Then handouts at home. Just let it crash already.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
j/c. I've been working 16 hour days and haven't had much time for news. I read a brief article about the jobs act and was about 50/50 on it. Has anyone else proposed a plan from either side?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,046
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,046 |
I suspect that they are still trying to get all the way through his bill. If you want to read the full bill, it's available online. It's only 155 pages long. http://www.scribd.com/doc/64723281/American-Jobs-ActI doubt that he will find many willing to increase taxes at this time. (in either party) One of the things that worries me is this: Remember when we've had bills that put policemen on the streets ...... or added teachers to classrooms ...... or all kinds of other really tremendous and wonderful things ...... for free? Well .. yeah ..... for free for a year or 2. Then it becomes the state's responsibility to pay for the additional expenses ..... and in mane cases, they are not allowed to cut the jobs that were created in order to balance their budgets. It's at least part of the reason that states had so many huge budget deficits. Federal mandates to the states, and bribes for short term job creation are a horrible combination.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I understand one neat provision of the bill is more secured loans for "green companies"... that plan worked so well the first time. So part of the plan is to basically tax and regulate the crap out of energy companies that provide the energy we need and could use at a lower cost to immediately create jobs and help move the economy out of this recession... and use that money to subsidize and give hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that aren't particularly stable, could be bankrupt a year from now and are involved in providing energy that is not real efficient, that most people can't use but that may pay dividends many years from now. Good plan.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
what I think is funny/sad is that alot of the largest advances in green energy are being made by the energy companies that are being villified. and that increasing taxes just cuts into their research budget (it can be cheaper for them to just buy these 'green companies' if they are successful though riskier as that makes it open to other energy companies as well).
these evil energy companies would not mind if we all go to green energy as long as they are still the ones providing it.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Quote:
I understand one neat provision of the bill is more secured loans for "green companies"... that plan worked so well the first time.
So part of the plan is to basically tax and regulate the crap out of energy companies that provide the energy we need and could use at a lower cost to immediately create jobs and help move the economy out of this recession... and use that money to subsidize and give hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that aren't particularly stable, could be bankrupt a year from now and are involved in providing energy that is not real efficient, that most people can't use but that may pay dividends many years from now. Good plan.
Do you mean like the $535 million given to Solyndra a year or so ago? So they could build a plant/enlarge a plant to build solar panels? The company that just basically closed? You mean like that????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Quote:
what I think is funny/sad is that alot of the largest advances in green energy are being made by the energy companies that are being villified. and that increasing taxes just cuts into their research budget (it can be cheaper for them to just buy these 'green companies' if they are successful though riskier as that makes it open to other energy companies as well).
these evil energy companies would not mind if we all go to green energy as long as they are still the ones providing it.
Absolutely 100% correct. And get this, they do the work, (granted, they get some grants etc from the gov't.) But, a "private" company won't keep throwing money at an issue when they see there isn't a viable return at some point in time. A "public" company will use every penny they get, then come back for more.
(private company means a company that has to answer to owners - stock holders - public company meaning a company that is funded in the most part by federal or state dollars. I don't want to confuse that one guy)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,046
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,046 |
Quote:
I understand one neat provision of the bill is more secured loans for "green companies"... that plan worked so well the first time.
Well, at least Immelt will be happy that his company will get back tax dollars they never put in...... (again)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Why doesn't Obama just institute by executive order a "compulsory donation" of all monies above $2M per individual?
1. It would make Buffett happy.
2. It would transform our $14T deficit into a $30T surplus.
3. Think of the social programs we could afford then.
I'm surprised I haven't heard of this yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,188
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,188 |
Quote:
Quote:
I understand one neat provision of the bill is more secured loans for "green companies"... that plan worked so well the first time.
So part of the plan is to basically tax and regulate the crap out of energy companies that provide the energy we need and could use at a lower cost to immediately create jobs and help move the economy out of this recession... and use that money to subsidize and give hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that aren't particularly stable, could be bankrupt a year from now and are involved in providing energy that is not real efficient, that most people can't use but that may pay dividends many years from now. Good plan.
Do you mean like the $535 million given to Solyndra a year or so ago? So they could build a plant/enlarge a plant to build solar panels? The company that just basically closed? You mean like that????
Come on now, that was all Bush's fault...
web page
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I understand one neat provision of the bill is more secured loans for "green companies"... that plan worked so well the first time.
So part of the plan is to basically tax and regulate the crap out of energy companies that provide the energy we need and could use at a lower cost to immediately create jobs and help move the economy out of this recession... and use that money to subsidize and give hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that aren't particularly stable, could be bankrupt a year from now and are involved in providing energy that is not real efficient, that most people can't use but that may pay dividends many years from now. Good plan.
Do you mean like the $535 million given to Solyndra a year or so ago? So they could build a plant/enlarge a plant to build solar panels? The company that just basically closed? You mean like that????
Come on now, that was all Bush's fault...
web page
Yup, according to the White House.
From the article I will quote:
"The panel examining the loan disclosed e-mails that appear to show senior staff at the White House Office of Management and Budget chafing about having to conduct "rushed approvals" of federal loan guarantees designed to help jumpstart the nation's renewable energy industry.
GOP lawmakers said the White House had scheduled a groundbreaking for Solyndra Inc. even before the Department of Energy had submitted its final paperwork on the terms of the loan to the OMB.
"We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews and have the approval set the date for the announcement rather than the other way around," said one of the emails from an unnamed OMB aide to the office of Vice President Joe Biden."
http://news.yahoo.com/house-probing-528m-loan-failed-solar-company-125931197.html
So, the white house scheduled a ground breaking before approval for the loans was given, e-mails show sr. staff at the white house having to conduct rushed approvals, and an e-mail to biden saying "we would prefer to have enough time to do our due diligence reviews and have that dictate the announcement date, as opposed to having the announcement date first......"
Hope and change. We all hoped for change. We got it. The problem is, the change was for the worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,264
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,264 |
Quote:
Come on now, that was all Bush's fault...
web page
Lol. I thought you were joking. They really are trying to blame it on Bush....but those cowards left out this little snippet:
" .... on January 9, 2009 -- at the end of the Bush administration -- the DOE Credit Committee voted against offering a conditional commitment to Solyndra, saying that the deal was premature and questioning its underlying financial support," Stearns said in his opening statement. "Only after Obama took control, and the stimulus passed, was the Solyndra deal pushed through."
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,046
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,046 |
This administration really does try to do everything before they know what's in the bills .....  This is insane.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
A July 2008 study found that the wind farm at Altamont Pass in California killed approximately 80 golden eagles and as many as 10,000 birds total per year, nearly all protected by the migratory bird act. Nothing was done. ExxonMobil plead guilty to killing 85 birds total protected by the same act when they came into contact with oil and pollutants in uncovered tanks and waste water on it's property and was fined $600,000... Pacificorp out of Oregan was cited for causing the death of 262 eagles in Wyoming that were electrecuted by poorly designed powerlines and they were fined $1.2 million... I love the EPA.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
ever since Michelle brought this up months ago I have pondered a few different ways that could be done to prevent this.
really, the best (and cheapest) solution could be as simple as putting a metal cage around the blades (much like we do on fans at home so childrens fingers don't get nipped. I am pretty sure they could come up with a way that doesn't decrease the fan efficiency while not allowing 99% of birds to get into the blades.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Quote:
A July 2008 study found that the wind farm at Altamont Pass in California killed approximately 80 golden eagles and as many as 10,000 birds total per year, nearly all protected by the migratory bird act. Nothing was done.
ExxonMobil plead guilty to killing 85 birds total protected by the same act when they came into contact with oil and pollutants in uncovered tanks and waste water on it's property and was fined $600,000... Pacificorp out of Oregan was cited for causing the death of 262 eagles in Wyoming that were electrecuted by poorly designed powerlines and they were fined $1.2 million...
I love the EPA.
Our gov't.............this country..............we are F.................well, we are........well, we are sexed. We are screwed.
We want to tax the hell out of the few companies that are making a profit, we want to shut down our energy plants(coal plants), we attempt to force "green" energy on people and companies, but if you screw it up we'll fine you (oh, a "screw up" is classified as having some birds die), we want to force people to get health insurance, we want to tax the hell out of the rich, ..................
We're screwed from top to bottom. And all our gov't. can do is "blame"......well, that, and fine people and companies. (unless the people or company is friends with the administration - then it doesn't matter)
It's getting beyond funny now.
To just a plain old guy that pays his taxes (good news, I'm one of the few homes in the country that the gov't. has claimed "your value went up"!)......everything this country has done recently seems to be to suck the life out of what we had.
I know I"m mixing federal, state, county, and school taxes in here - but somehow, they all want/need more! Meanwhile they attempt to penalize the very damn companies that pay taxes, and the very damn companies that provide the energy to run this country. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!! And on top of all that, the very companies this admin. vilifies are the ones that play by the rules our congress has mandated!!! It's pathetic. We live in a sound byte society - a microwave society - and our gov'ts feel they are the answer to any problem.
They aren't. They hamper the hell out of this country, but as long as they suck a few more people into the vacuum of "gov't.will take care of you".........they get re-elected.
And for what???????? So they can take more, screw more over, and get more power.
I'm sick of it.
Rant off - for now. We live in a screwed over country, and the screwing was done and will be done by the people that get on t.v. and say crap like "I'm fighting for the citizens of this country.". Bull - you're fighting for your damn job - just as most of us are - problem is, for most of us, doing a good job means job security - for gov't., doing a good job means you screw even more people.......in more ways than one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Quote:
ever since Michelle brought this up months ago I have pondered a few different ways that could be done to prevent this.
really, the best (and cheapest) solution could be as simple as putting a metal cage around the blades (much like we do on fans at home so childrens fingers don't get nipped. I am pretty sure they could come up with a way that doesn't decrease the fan efficiency while not allowing 99% of birds to get into the blades.
Screw that. Science tells us evolution is so evident...........let the dumb birds die, we don't want them polluting the bird dna. Let the smart birds that figure out not to fly into moving objects die.
Birds die every day by flying into windows. I don't see the u.s. fining home owners for that (although if anyone from the gov't. reads this, we'll probably see it happen)
Birds get eaten by cats. Apparently gov't. hasn't found a way to fine cats yet, otherwise, they would.
I'm sick of our gov't. All of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,368
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,368 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
Quote:
Okay - so what would you do? Ban windows? Ban cats? Perhaps fine everyone with a window? Charge a "cat tax"?
Or get the stupid birds out of the way. I mean, evolution and all. A bird ought to be smart enough to not fly into things, not?
Yeah, to an extent I'm being sarcastic - but come on - our gov't. has almost mandated this "green" energy thing - yet they fine companies for doing it? We can't, here in Ohio, put windmills on Lake Erie because they might harm birds - yet Canada does it in unbelievable fashion. Seems to work for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
really, the best (and cheapest) solution could be as simple as putting a metal cage around the blades (much like we do on fans at home so childrens fingers don't get nipped.
You do realize that some of these fan blades in production now have a 100m diameter right? You would need a cage about a football field long by a football field high with no openings bigger than about 6" x 6". This would be a massive structure that would be very heavy and you would have to figure out how to support it.. it would be virtually impossible to do.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
We want to tax the hell out of the few companies that are making a profit
Where on earth do you get this?
Corporate profits margins are doing just fine, and many are paying less taxes )if they're paying them at all).
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/gdp4q10_3rd.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,368
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,368 |
I understand that the government goes overboard with these kinds of things, however, I saw you going over the deep end in the other direction.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Obama's "American Jobs Act"
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)