# Land of the Stupid



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A few examples....

#1. Back when masses of immigrants from Europe were entering this country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Nobody thought they had a legal or a moral ârightâ to be in America or that it was mean or racist not to want our children to catch their diseases.

#2. Although liberals are usually gung ho for increasing the minimum wage, there was a sympathetic front page story in the July 29th _San Francisco Chronicle_ about the plight of a local non-profit organization that will not be able to serve as many low-income minority youths if it has to pay a higher minimum wage. They are seeking some kind of exemption. 

One of the few countries without a minimum wage law is Switzerland, where the unemployment rate has been consistently less than 4 percent for years. Back in 2003, the _Economist_ magazine reported that âSwitzerlandâs unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February.â The most recent issue shows the Swiss unemployment rate back to a more normal 3.2 percent.

#3. Many people in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are staging angry protests against Israelâs military action in Gaza. One of the talking points against Israel is that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.

Are these protesters aware that vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers attacking Nazi Germany during World War II than American civilians killed in the United States by Hitlerâs forces?


http://spectator.org/articles/60167/thinking-obsolete


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

To answer your question, no. Why let facts get in the way, it's all about how you feel now. Israel is big and bad, that's how they are told to feel, They don't want to hear facts about how Hamas has been digging tunnels, pouring enough concrete to build wonderful cities for the Palestinian people to live in, but using the concrete to prepare for war.

We have to feel for the illegals coming here, after all they are too uneducated to apply for citizenship the normal way. Besides they work for cheap, and vote democrat. After all, we have to increase the minimum wage so burger flippers can make a living wage, it feels right, we need an illegal work force thats off the books so they can work below minimum.

You must be a conservative, you heartless, logical thinking Vulcan.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Hard to imagine anything more out of touch, than comparing the economy of the U.S., to that of Switzerland.

If Switzerland is such a great country, why isn't their unemployment rate 0%?


----------



## LonghornGardens (May 23, 2012)

Maybe some of our Democrats moved there?


----------



## Appalachia (Jul 11, 2012)

HDRider said:


> One of the few countries without a minimum wage law is Switzerland, where the unemployment rate has been consistently less than 4 percent for years. Back in 2003, the _Economist_ magazine reported that âSwitzerlandâs unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February.â The most recent issue shows the Swiss unemployment rate back to a more normal 3.2 percent.


Maybe their unemployment rate is low because Switzerland mandates it's citizens to purchase private health insurance? 

(I don't believe this to be the case, I'm trying to illustrate abstract comparisons aren't always valid). 

No argument on 1 and 3 though.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Appalachia said:


> Maybe their unemployment rate is low because Switzerland mandates it's citizens to purchase private health insurance?
> 
> (I don't believe this to be the case, I'm trying to illustrate abstract comparisons aren't always valid).
> 
> No argument on 1 and 3 though.


I looked up switzerlands health care system on wikipedia and that is just the system we need here.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Switzerland's low unemployment rate and high quality of life, health care, good wages etc. is because of their very small population. They only have a little over 8 million people and they're intelligent enough to keep their birth rates low enough to continue sustaining their high quality lifestyle and economy. Their health care system and insurance is universal, it's compulsory and it's controlled by the federal government.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Switzerland's low unemployment rate and high quality of life, health care, good wages etc. is because of their very small population. They only have a little over 8 million people and they're intelligent enough to keep their birth rates low enough to continue sustaining their high quality lifestyle and economy. Their health care system and insurance is universal, it's compulsory and it's controlled by the federal government.


And most everyone is armed! I was there two years ago to see a former employer!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Switzerland's low unemployment rate and high quality of life, health care, good wages etc. is because of their very small population. .


Absurd. All I have to do to prove that wrong is find one other country of similar size that does not have low unemployment, high quality of life, good wages, etc. Hmmmm...let's see, Cambodia had about 7M people when the Khmer Rouge began killing a quarter of its population. Hmmmm...perhaps size isn't the controlling issue.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> Absurd. All I have to do to prove that wrong is find one other country of similar size that does not have low unemployment, high quality of life, good wages, etc. Hmmmm...let's see, Cambodia had about 7M people when the Khmer Rouge began killing a quarter of its population. Hmmmm...perhaps size isn't the controlling issue.


:hysterical:

That made no sense at all and proves nothing. Trying to compare apples to oranges, there is no comparison between the two countries as they are practically opposites in development. Cambodia is one of the lowest ranking countries in the world in terms of human development, it's one of the most corrupt and uncivilized countries in the world and now has nearly twice the population as Switzerland. Are you trying to say that Switzerland is the same? 

What I said about Switzerland is the truth, they are the facts and the facts are not debatable. What was your point and what exactly were you trying to prove? Or were you just being contrary as usual.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> That made no sense at all and proves nothing. Trying to compare apples to oranges, there is no comparison between the two countries as they are practically opposites in development. Cambodia is one of the lowest ranking countries in the world in terms of human development, it's one of the most corrupt and uncivilized countries in the world and now has nearly twice the population as Switzerland. Are you trying to say that Switzerland is the same?
> 
> What I said about Switzerland is the truth, they are the *facts and the facts* are not debatable. What was your point and what exactly were you trying to prove? Or were you just being contrary as usual.


Facts are facts - That is true. 

Fact - We are becoming a country dominated by stupid people.

More to the OP, maybe a minimum wage is a bad idea. Maybe Switzerland illustrates that. Hard to say. Maybe if we did away with MW we'd get the facts.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

HDRider said:


> A few examples....
> 
> #1. Back when masses of immigrants from Europe were entering this country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Nobody thought they had a legal or a moral ârightâ to be in America or that it was mean or racist not to want our children to catch their diseases.
> 
> ...


Switzerland has a maximum.wage cap.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Switzerland was rolling in money due to their secret banking rules. Those are being erroded and, if the Swiss don't come up with an alternative, then there might actually be some disagreeable trimming of the social perks.
Just as North Sea and Baltic oil has floated the self indulgent life style of the socially progressive Scandinavian countries, easy bank money floated the Swiss.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Facts are facts - That is true.
> 
> Fact - We are becoming a country dominated by stupid people.
> 
> More to the OP, maybe a minimum wage is a bad idea. Maybe Switzerland illustrates that. Hard to say. Maybe if we did away with MW we'd get the facts.


If you provide unlimited low cost labor (ie uncontrolled and mostly illegal immigration) and simultaneously refuse to limit low wage goods coming into the country, then legally preventing the resulting drop in earnings is the only thing liberals can do to keep people from objecting to the resulting wage stagnation. The fact that it does not fix the problem is not material to their world view. The fact that, if you push up the wages beyond the value of the service provided, employers either squeeze their employees for more productivity somewhere else or go out of business. 

It's the result of having a theory of government that wants too many conflicting things. It won't work on its own and needs endless patching to keep clanking along. Except, after every manual readjustment of the world to make it fit into this fiction, equalibrium is a new low.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

where I want to said:


> If you provide unlimited low cost labor (ie uncontrolled and mostly illegal immigration) and simultaneously refuse to limit low wage goods coming into the country, then legally preventing the resulting drop in earnings is the only thing liberals can do to keep people from objecting to the resulting wage stagnation. The fact that it does not fix the problem is not material to their world view. The fact that, if you push up the wages beyond the value of the service provided, employers either squeeze their employees for more productivity somewhere else or go out of business.
> 
> It's the result of having a theory of government that wants too many conflicting things. It won't work on its own and needs endless patching to keep clanking along. Except, after every manual readjustment of the world to make it fit into this fiction, equalibrium is a new low.


This is v literally the exact opposite of fact. CEO wages have sky rocketed worker wages are stagnant. Worker productivity is up. 

You brought up illegals for no reason. And ignored out sourcing. Or disingenuously blamed liberals for that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

iti_oj said:


> Switzerland has a maximum.wage cap.


I really don't want to debate Switzerland and how much smarter their government and people are, but,,,,

(Reuters) - Swiss voters rejected a proposal on Sunday to cap the salaries of top executives at 12 times that of a company's lowest wage, heeding warnings from industry leaders that the measure could harm the country's economy.

The wealthy nation, which is home to some of the world's biggest companies including food group Nestle (NESN.VX) and commodities giant Glencore Xstrata (GLEN.L), voted 66 percent against imposing the limit. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/24/us-swiss-vote-pay-idUSBRE9AN0BW20131124

Further - Switzerland is sometimes considered a tax haven due to its general low rate of taxation, its political stability as well as the various tax exemptions or reductions available to Swiss companies doing business abroad, or foreign persons residing in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

iti_oj said:


> This is v literally the exact opposite of fact. CEO wages have sky rocketed worker wages are stagnant. Worker productivity is up.
> 
> You brought up illegals for no reason. And ignored out sourcing. Or disingenuously blamed liberals for that.


Your opinions have been proven wrong so many times and yet they keep coming back. Please read the title of this post once more.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Your opinions have been proven wrong so many times and yet they keep coming back. Please read the title of this post once more.


I just posted facts.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> That made no sense at all and proves nothing. Trying to compare apples to oranges, there is no comparison between the two countries as they are practically opposites in development. Cambodia is one of the lowest ranking countries in the world in terms of human development, it's one of the most corrupt and uncivilized countries in the world and now has nearly twice the population as Switzerland. Are you trying to say that Switzerland is the same?
> 
> What I said about Switzerland is the truth, they are the facts and the facts are not debatable. What was your point and what exactly were you trying to prove? Or were you just being contrary as usual.


Thank you, you just unwittingly proved me right. Rather than just admit you made an error, you launched into exactly what proves my point. In a prior message you said Switzerland had lots of good stuff because of their small size population and now you say there are lots of other reasons Switzerland has lots of good stuff. That was my point, it is not population size, it is good gov't that respects private property rights, an educated populace, low levels of crime, and other factors.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I really don't want to debate Switzerland and how much smarter their government and people are, but,,,,
> 
> (Reuters) - Swiss voters rejected a proposal on Sunday to cap the salaries of top executives at 12 times that of a company's lowest wage, heeding warnings from industry leaders that the measure could harm the country's economy.
> 
> ...


I was under the impression they had one and were voting to l lower it. Quick Google I was unable to find a link stating such. So I'll concede the point


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

iti_oj said:


> I just posted facts.


You posted nothing but opinions. Your opinions. I could argue with you all day and you will still hold those opinions. I am tired of arguing with people like you. You never change and so there is no point. Until you take off your green blinders of envy you will keep right on being one of them.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

HDRider said:


> You posted nothing but opinions. Your opinions. I could argue with you all day and you will still hold those opinions. I am tired of arguing with people like you. You never change and so there is no point. Until you take off your green blinders of envy you will keep right on being one of them.


You gotta be kidding me like two posts above I admitted I was wrong. And what do you mean people like me? Do you even know a thing about me? Or are you just spouting opinions again?


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

iti_oj said:


> I was under the impression they had one and were voting to l lower it. Quick Google I was unable to find a link stating such. So I'll concede the point


Because I don't change my mind...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

iti_oj said:


> I was under the impression they had one and were voting to l lower it. Quick Google I was unable to find a link stating such. So I'll concede the point


:goodjob:

Thank you. We all make errors, me as much as anyone else. I appreciate it when someone admits to an error.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> Absurd. All I have to do to prove that wrong is find one other country of similar size that does not have low unemployment, high quality of life, good wages, etc. Hmmmm...let's see, Cambodia had about 7M people when the Khmer Rouge began killing a quarter of its population. Hmmmm...perhaps size isn't the controlling issue.


The response was centered around the comparison of the economies of Switzerland, to that of the U.S., which of course, is absurd.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> More to the OP, maybe a minimum wage is a bad idea. Maybe Switzerland illustrates that. Hard to say. Maybe if we did away with MW we'd get the facts.


Lowering the minimum wage, will qualify more people for the dole.

Other than more profits for businesses, whats the upside, for America, which never became a great country, based on third-world wages.?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> #3. Many people in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are staging angry protests against Israel&#8217;s military action in Gaza. One of the talking points against Israel is that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.
> 
> Are these protesters aware that vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers attacking Nazi Germany during World War II than American civilians killed in the United States by Hitler&#8217;s forces?
> 
> ...


For sure.

The U.S. attacks against the Germans were absolutely an offensive military maneuver, even if for obvious reasons.

Israel claims that by killing of Palestinian civilians they are simply defending themselves.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Lowering the minimum wage, will qualify more people for the dole.
> 
> Other than more profits for businesses, whats the upside, for America, which never became a great country, based on third-world wages.?


not necessarily true. The chances that many employers are going to suddenly lower pay rates is low. As proof, witness the fact that few employers leave new hires at min wage for more than a few months. So it should hurt few if any existing employees. For those that don't have jobs now, they most likely already qualify for welfare, so that doesn't add anyone.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> For sure.
> 
> The U.S. attacks against the Germans were absolutely an offensive military maneuver, even if for obvious reasons.
> 
> Israel claims that by killing of Palestinian civilians they are simply defending themselves.


Israel and Hamas goals are entirely different. Hamas is trying to kill civilians or at least terrorize them. Israel is trying to take out offensive weapons and civilians, at least some of the time "encouraged" to be there, die because of their proximity to the Hamas weapons. Hamas is trying to make sure civilians die and they don't really care whose side they are on. 

Israel, due to advances in targeting technology, is actually acting with more civility than did the US in WW2. When we fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo, our targets were the civilians, to kill or displace the workforce that was creating enemy weapons.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Frankly, this country will have a hard time recovering, if at all, from the self inflicted damage done by the self centered in the pursuit arrogant goals.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> not necessarily true. The chances that many employers are going to suddenly lower pay rates is low. As proof, witness the fact that few employers leave new hires at min wage for more than a few months. So it should hurt few if any existing employees. For those that don't have jobs now, they most likely already qualify for welfare, so that doesn't add anyone.


Why wouldn't they? 

FWIW everything you as posted is only speculation. 

What I posted is indeed fact, that lowering the minimum wage, will absolutely make some working people poorer, than they already are, while corporations who only pay minimum wage, will make more money.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> Israel, due to advances in targeting technology, is actually acting with more civility than did the US in WW2. When we fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo, our targets were the civilians, to kill or displace the workforce that was creating enemy weapons.


Israel can do no wrong.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Israel can do no wrong.


If your neighbors were lobbying rockets with warheads into your backyard, you might have a different opinion. 

What should Israel do?


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> If your neighbors were lobbying rockets with warheads into your backyard, you might have a different opinion.
> 
> What should Israel do?


Of your neighbor took your house burned it down and built a new one you would launch rockets from the shed to. What should Israel do? Stop settling, recognize Palestine and list the travel band.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

Im a fairly conservative person. Yet your point on Germans killed in the 1940's by our bombs compared to whats going on today seems a little off base.
Even though a Dem president signed the Fair Trade Agreement", it was voted on by a very high percentage of the Rep.. Also first talked about by his predecessor which was Republican.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> FWIW everything you as posted is only speculation.
> 
> What I posted is indeed fact, that lowering the minimum wage, will absolutely make some working people poorer, than they already are, while corporations who only pay minimum wage, will make more money.


I already answered why they would not, but indeed that was speculation. It is always speculation where one predicts the future actions of people based on the many unknown variables that can effect a large population. But what is really funny is that you hit me for speculation, then you speculate and claim it as fact. Changing the min wage law will not automatically make working people poorer. 

And what you zero sum game folks always fail to understand is that as businesses expand opportunities, it creates more jobs. Some folks will choose to work more hours and make more money, even if it is at a lower rate / hour.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> I already answered why they would not, but indeed that was speculation. It is always speculation where one predicts the future actions of people based on the many unknown variables that can effect a large population. But what is really funny is that you hit me for speculation, then you speculate and claim it as fact. Changing the min wage law will not automatically make working people poorer.
> 
> And what you zero sum game folks always fail to understand is that as businesses expand opportunities, it creates more jobs. Some folks will choose to work more hours and make more money, even if it is at a lower rate / hour.


They said the same thing when we bailed out wall street. The Fed is still pumping money into it. Yet no job or wage growth. The money has stayed at the top.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

iti_oj said:


> They said the same thing when we bailed out wall street. The Fed is still pumping money into it. Yet no job or wage growth. The money had stayed at the top.


And I was against the wall street bail outs. But regardless, this thread has gone in so many different directions I'm not willing to participate in yet another trip on the red herring express right now.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> And I was against the wall street bail outs.w.


Well that's some where we agree. We as Americans should perhaps find more common ground. To much dualism in politics ATM.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> I already answered why they would not, but indeed that was speculation. It is always speculation where one predicts the future actions of people based on the many unknown variables that can effect a large population. But what is really funny is that you hit me for speculation, then you speculate and claim it as fact. Changing the min wage law will not automatically make working people poorer.
> 
> And what you zero sum game folks always fail to understand is that as businesses expand opportunities, it creates more jobs. Some folks will choose to work more hours and make more money, even if it is at a lower rate / hour.


Hmmm

If one was making $7.50 and now is making $5.50 an hour (or less) would that not be poorer?

Creating more jobs, by expanding business opportunities? How many more McDonalds and Walmarts, do we need? Why wouldn't businness simply bank the labor savings, like they do with their record profits now?

So, workers working more hours, for less money, is the key to success, in America, since when?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> And I was against the wall street bail outs.


Interesting.

Our entire economic universe was imploding. 

What should we have done in stead? Let the free market prevail?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Hmmm
> 
> If one was making $7.50 and now is making $5.50 an hour (or less) would that not be poorer?
> 
> ...


As I said, you are speculating that employers would lower the current pay. I wouldn't beat you up about it except that you made speculating a big deal and even when told, don't recognize that you are doing it. 

To be fair, that may very well happen where min wage is artificially higher than what employers and employees find mutually agreeable. But in many areas of the country, you can't hire anyone for min wage. In the DC burbs, you can't even hire an illegal worker for less than $10 / hour. I haven't looked in a few years, but last time I was in a McD's around there, they had signs up advertizing $12.xx as a starting rate. SO you know they pay their good workers better. 

Beyond that, I think you would benefit from a study of basic economics, but I don't have time to explain supply and demand curves.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Hmmm
> 
> If one was making $7.50 and now is making $5.50 an hour (or less) would that not be poorer?


$7.50 is above minimum wage...if their employer is already paying them more than they have to, what makes you think they won't continue to pay them more than they have to?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> $7.50 is above minimum wage...if their employer is already paying them more than they have to, what makes you think they won't continue to pay them more than they have to?


They wouldn't. I forgot the minimum wage was $7.25.

My point was if it was lowered to $5.25 - maybe no MW at all, wages will go down at many companies, especially since some profess the current rate is too high.

If company's want to pay more certainly nothing is stopping them.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> $7.50 is above minimum wage...if their employer is already paying them more than they have to, what makes you think they won't continue to pay them more than they have to?


JTB - please. that comment was uncalled for. logic and reason have no place in this conversation. 






:goodjob:


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

Logical fallacies, non sequiturs, misrepresentation of just about everything. The topic is rather fitting.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Facts are facts - That is true.
> 
> *Fact - We are becoming a country dominated by stupid people.*
> 
> More to the OP, maybe a minimum wage is a bad idea. Maybe Switzerland illustrates that. Hard to say. Maybe if we did away with MW we'd get the facts.


Several pages of yada, yada, yada, but the bolded part above is the best point yet made.

The more idiot proof we try to make our society, the more idiots we will have! 

Suing for millions over hot coffee, leaving babies in hot cars to die, children murdering a playmate to "win" an online game -- you don't have to look past the day's headlines to see the rise in stupidity, helplessness, lack of common sense, reduced self reliance, separation from reality, etc.

What do we do about it? Go back to survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, get tough or die? Can we find a balance where our most vulnerable are protected, but we aren't all over protected to the point of being stifled??


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> They wouldn't. I forgot the minimum wage was $7.25.
> 
> My point was if it was lowered to $5.25 - maybe no MW at all, wages will go down at many companies, especially since some profess the current rate is too high.
> 
> If company's want to pay more certainly nothing is stopping them.


You may be right about that, but it is speculation as DEKE said. Anyway, my point still applies. Very few people actually make minimum wage. About 98.9% of American workers (and that's a real stat, not made up) are already being paid more than the law requires.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

supernovae said:


> Logical fallacies, non sequiturs, misrepresentation of just about everything. The topic is rather fitting.




Pssssssst.

This is General Chat.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Would Switzerland have a higher tax if they operated the world's largest military? Would Switzerland have as low of an unemployment rate if 17% of the population were Black? Is that even a factor?
Can any comparisons be made between 200 years of Black suppression in the US and the high rate of lawlessness (St. Louis)we see today and Israel's continued treatment of Palestinians, that are now lashing out at Israel? Completely different?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Minimum Wage history lesson.

About a hundred years ago, an industrial and social genius, Henry Ford, offered a $5. a day wage, over the prevailing $2 wage. He was not only able to attract the best workers, but he was able to spur the economy. People could afford to buy a car, refrigerator, house, etc. This created more jobs and more people could afford his car. US manufacturing capacity grew like nothing the world had ever seen. Everyone had the opportunity to rise above their earlier status. America became strong. Ford poured profits into communities. 
When Pearl Harbor was bombed, we ha the industrial might, with both manufacturing capacity and a ready workforce, to assemble planes, tanks, equipment surpassing the German and Japanese combined. We had a citizenry that didn't want to lose their place in the American Dream and were willing to fight to keep it. 
From a generous wage, we became a World Power.
Today, CEOs, who have seen wage increases of 1000%, are willing to close a factory and move to China over a single percent in operating costs. Our manufacturing base is eroded. Stamping presses sold as scrap and floated to China. Ever larger segments of society are perpetually unemployed and the Middle Class, facing higher commodity prices and shrinking wages, have become the working poor, living paycheck to paycheck. Who among them will fight for the American Dream? All while the very rich shelter their ever increasing profits in off shore accounts.
Minimum wage? That isn't a solution. Business owners with an interest in a safe strong America, by investing here and spending some of their billions, would go a long way towards curing our economic woes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Minimum Wage history lesson.
> 
> About a hundred years ago, an industrial and social genius, Henry Ford, offered a $5. a day wage, over the prevailing $2 wage. He was not only able to attract the best workers, but he was able to spur the economy. People could afford to buy a car, refrigerator, house, etc. This created more jobs and more people could afford his car. US manufacturing capacity grew like nothing the world had ever seen. Everyone had the opportunity to rise above their earlier status. America became strong. Ford poured profits into communities.
> When Pearl Harbor was bombed, we ha the industrial might, with both manufacturing capacity and a ready workforce, to assemble planes, tanks, equipment surpassing the German and Japanese combined. We had a citizenry that didn't want to lose their place in the American Dream and were willing to fight to keep it.
> ...


Just don't know how to bring them back. If if I did know, half of you on here would disagree with me.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It only takes one or two. Corporate America is very much monkey see, monkey do. A few are innovators and the rest are followers. One or two well respected companies make a new effort to build things here, others will follow. I can't find the article now, but it was posted here, detailing all the reasons why an appliance manufacturer brought a factory back from China. Things like theft of intellectual property, communication gap between workers on the line and engineers that prevented refining the manufacturing processes, and so on. And here's another one:
http://news.d2p.com/2014/01/07/appliance-manufacturing-returns-to-the-u-s/

I think the trend will continue if these "pioneers" are successful. Less jobs than before because of automation, and still some components sure to be imported, but you gotta start somewhere.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Would Switzerland have a higher tax if they operated the world's largest military? Would Switzerland have as low of an unemployment rate if 17% of the population were Black? Is that even a factor?
> Can any comparisons be made between 200 years of Black suppression in the US and the high rate of lawlessness (St. Louis)we see today and Israel's continued treatment of Palestinians, that are now lashing out at Israel? Completely different?


One question to ask is would Switzerland continue to exist if others did not fight their battles for them. Another would be if Switzerland, that notoriously difficult place to immigrate unless very rich, would ever find themselves with a diverse population in the first place. 
Lawlessness- hmmm..... well, I guess to answer your question you'd need to look in places the US can not possibly be blamed and see if there is a difference. 

Hooking various things together without making any connection is not an argument, much less establishing a cause and effect. It's just as bad as making the opposite conclusion. It simply depends on whim.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I don't know if you'll be able to read this or not or if it fits with this discussion.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Business owners with an interest in a safe strong America, by investing here and spending some of their billions, would go a long way towards curing our economic woes.


Lots of spurious logic in your min wage history, but regardless, if you want business owners to invest in America, it MUST be the best economic decision they can make. CEOs of public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to provide the best economic performance, not the most patriotic performance. If you want a company making patriotic decisions, see how long they last against a company making better economic decisions. 

So how to attract more jobs to the US? Make it easier and more profitable to do business here. Fix the broken tax code, don't penalize repatriating foreign profits, don't make companies negotiate impossibly difficult to understand and often conflicting regulations from all sorts of different agencies at fed, state, and local levels. 

When southern states invite manufacturers to do business there, strip out regulatory hurdles, guarantee that regs and tax law won't change for 10 or 20 years, and the workers do not burden the company with stupid union rules, companies find paying higher US wage rates an acceptable trade for US worker productivity and proximity to suppliers and customers. Hmmm...more like when Henry Ford did all those great things you praised, as opposed to what the northern states and unions did to the car makers in the 70s and 80s.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Riches tend to accumulate riches but the various bail outs turned that tap wide open. And the Fed has not shut off that flow yet. Sooner or later, that flow will start to be restricted a tiny bit and the stock market will fall at the same time inflation will increase. That is in the design of the bail out plans. 

Various public pension funds will make up the short fall through increased government spending. At the same time that the accumulated public debt is eating up more and more of the budgets.

The only thing that has kept this from starting is the non-governmental wage suppresion, which will end when inflation pressures a demand for higher wages. Something a higher minimum wage will encourage. But the government has painted itself into this corner where they must create inflation to keep the whole thing afloat. 

The common theme in every bit of this is that the average tax payer is going to end paying the extra tax burden of debt at the same time inflation eats away at their lifestyle while not seeing any benefit that the poor and rich get.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Simple wealth math. 
Wealth of a country is ;
Population x education x resources. 
Wealth if a average individual in a country;
Resources/population x education. 


Population being equal Switzerland out scores Cambodia significantly in resources and education.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I remember Paumon. Naturelover got banned too.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

About 25% of Switzerland's working citizens are members of trade unions. Only about 37% of Swiss own their own homes, meaning they're butts belong to their landlords.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If 80% of those that went overboard on buying houses back a few years ago would have RENTED INSTEAD we may not have even had a crisis in th housing market that went on and caused such a uproar in try economy. RENTING would have been WAY better for those 80% then ever owning a home and causing so much to go wrong because they could NOT AFFORD SUCH THINGS AS A HOME. At Least in the size the suckers went and got tied into.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

In response to the "minimum wage history lesson" comments and evil CEO's.

Don't forget about all of the jobs your federal goverment has wiped out due to meddling where they shouldn't be. A prime example right now is Peabody Energy who recently filed bankruptcy. They are literally being driven out of business by federal policies mandating all of this BS clean energy that costs twice as much as good old coal fired electricity. Thousands of jobs will be lost nationwide, electric costs will go up, and the US may lose a large part of it's electrical infrastructure.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And don't forget this country is doing so well in the economy that Freightliner Trucks is laying OFF just under 1,000 workers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I wonder what brought a 2 year old post back.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol I looked up brown Swiss and one thing led to another.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> If 80% of those that went overboard on buying houses back a few years ago would have RENTED INSTEAD we may not have even had a crisis in th housing market that went on and caused such a uproar in try economy. RENTING would have been WAY better for those 80% then ever owning a home and causing so much to go wrong because they could NOT AFFORD SUCH THINGS AS A HOME. At Least in the size the suckers went and got tied into.


Some of those who lost their homes are renting the same house now. I have three doing that.....


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Fishindude said:


> They are literally being driven out of business by federal policies mandating all of this BS clean energy that costs twice as much as good old coal fired electricity. Thousands of jobs will be lost nationwide, electric costs will go up, and the US may lose a large part of it's electrical infrastructure.


Just keep repeating that to yourself, eventually you'll believe it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Just keep repeating that to yourself, eventually you'll believe it.


Just another one of Obama's campaign promises coming to fruition:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4[/ame]


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Just another one of Obama's campaign promises coming to fruition:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlT...s straightforward as it might seem.
> [/quote]


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't have enough bandwidth, sorry. Maybe they will blunder the transition badly enough to raise rates, but honestly I rather doubt it. WInd and solar now are almost the same price as coal. The problem is they do tend to result in blackouts.
> 
> http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-...ctric-bills-no-matter-what-conservatives-say/


Obama said, in his own words, in 2008 that, under his energy plans, power bills would necessarily skyrocket. That is not some Conservative lie, it is the words out of his own mouth.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

*WInd and solar now are almost the same price as coal. The problem is they do tend to result in blackouts.*

Wrong !
The only reason the price is anywhere close is because all aspects of wind and solar are heavily subsidized by your federal government. Everything from the manufacturing of the products to construction of the wind and solar farms is getting huge federal incentives and breaks to encourage the growth of this industry. They also force coal based energy companies to buy into these "clean energy" investments so that a certain percentage of their power is "clean energy".

If a windmill or solar panel had to compete on an even playing field based on just producing affordable energy, we would be using neither. They aren't real handy after dark or when the wind isn't blowing either.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Boy is that true, there are 100's of BILLIONS going into the subsidies. BILLIONS and BILLIONS. Ya that is the ONLY way they may even have a chance at being the same as the coal and others. and with 50% of THIS country getting electricity from coal fired plants. MILLIONS will sever under OBAMA WOW he sure HATES the poor, AND America too.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> Obama said, in his own words, in 2008 that, under his energy plans, power bills would necessarily skyrocket. That is not some Conservative lie, it is the words out of his own mouth.





> Under my plan o*f a cap-and-trade system,* electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the _ Chronicle _ . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."


 He never got a 'cap and trade' system, he got some watered-down EPA regulations that states can take till 2018 to decide how to implement. There'll be another president by then, so if they don't like it, they can kick it to the curb.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

greg273 said:


> He never got a 'cap and trade' system, he got some watered-down EPA regulations that states can take till 2018 to decide how to implement. There'll be another president by then, so if they don't like it, they can kick it to the curb.


But, he has a phone and he has a pen, he can do it all!!! Like bankrupt coal companies, like HRC promises to continue.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Boy is that true, there are 100's of BILLIONS going into the subsidies. BILLIONS and BILLIONS.


 Got a link? Where are you getting those numbers from? Although, If you're pulling them out of where I think you are, then I don't really want to know.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Got a link? Where are you getting those numbers from? Although, If you're pulling them out of where I think you are, then I don't really want to know.


 Do some research and look it UP, before calling me a lair. LOL

Thune and others who want another bill extending green energy tax credits after passing *a massive $680 billion tax package in December that included a slew of green energy subsidies *&#8212; including a $23.8 billion investment tax credit for building solar panels.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Do some research and look it UP. LOL


I thought as much. LOL.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I thought as much. LOL.


You too????? Come on GOOGLE IS YOUR FREIND. Do it, doesn't hurt a bit. Prove me wrong. Go ahead. I have the article and have it saved in my favorites, but I have DONE MY research, after I heard it on the radio yesterday now do yours.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol I looked up brown Swiss and one thing led to another.


Just think what might happen if you search black betty.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Do some research and look it UP, before calling me a lair. LOL
> 
> Thune and others who want another bill extending green energy tax credits after passing *a massive $680 billion tax package in December that included a slew of green energy subsidies *â including a $23.8 billion investment tax credit for building solar panels.


 Lol, apparently you don't even read your own links. Show us the 'hundreds and hundreds of billions' going to 'renewable energy'.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> Boy is that true, there are 100's of BILLIONS going into the subsidies. BILLIONS and BILLIONS. Ya that is the ONLY way they may even have a chance at being the same as the coal and others. and with 50% of THIS country getting electricity from coal fired plants. MILLIONS will sever under OBAMA WOW he sure HATES the poor, AND America too.



Wouldn't hundreds of billions be something like a half trillion ? Or about 10 % of the US budget ?
That seems a bit high.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Boy is that true, there are 100's of BILLIONS going into the subsidies..


 :hysterical: So a guy hears something on the radio, then reads an article that talks about a spending bill that has $23 billion in tax credits for solar power, and whammo! all of a sudden its 'hundreds and hundreds of billions' going to renewable energy. Wow, talk about out of touch. Google is indeed your friend Arabian Knight, but only if you use it correctly to suss out the facts, not the half-baked spin and opinion pieces.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Remember the company Solyndra, that was supposed to be a red hot maker of solar panels?

Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. 

Oh yea .... they quickly went broke and we taxpayers were left with the mess.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Fishindude said:


> Remember the company Solyndra, that was supposed to be a red hot maker of solar panels?
> 
> Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.
> 
> Oh yea .... they quickly went broke and we taxpayers were left with the mess.


And that's happened several times with oil companies, car companies, and Wall Street banks. But it's only bad when the green sector does it? Nice double standard.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

It's bad when it's done in any sector. Government doesn't seem to be quite as careful of investments and returns as they should be.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

No double standard here, the feds shouldn't be meddling in oil, auto or banking business either.

It's not like Solyndra was the only one.

1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9.EnerDel&#8217;s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21.Olsen&#8217;s Crop Service and Olsen&#8217;s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26.GreenVolts ($500,000)
27.Vestas ($50 million)
28.LG Chem&#8217;s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30.Navistar ($39 million)
31.Satcon ($3 million)*
32.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

All in the last few years under the same economic stimulus program trying to develop green energy.
This stuff doesn't work and frequently fails even when a bunch of federal money is thrown at it to help.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Fishindude said:


> No double standard here, the feds shouldn't be meddling in oil, auto or banking business either.
> 
> It's not like Solyndra was the only one.
> 
> ...


Link to source for your data, please? I'd like to determine the meaning of all those asterisks.

Meantime, don't forget to compare those vast sums of money to the amounts of subsidies for fossil fuels -- already well-established industries -- of roughly 37.5 *b*illion annually from just the USA. If you include global subsidies for fossil fuels, they total something up to 1 *t*rillion annually.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Those poor, poor fossil fuels companies, scraping along with such limited funds.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Soylndra ....Yeah

The previous administration had turned down the loans......predicted to the very month when they were going broke.

Why did Obama give them the money? Simple. They were major fundraisers for him, bundlers of contributions, and the corp coughed up a lot of bucks for his campaign.

In this way, it became a magic circle that is so common on the left, where US taxpayers financed Obama's campaign, with only a short pause as the tax dollars became Solyndras, then Obama's....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Link to source for your data, please? I'd like to determine the meaning of all those asterisks.
> 
> Meantime, don't forget to compare those vast sums of money to the amounts of subsidies for fossil fuels -- already well-established industries -- of roughly 37.5 *b*illion annually from just the USA. If you include global subsidies for fossil fuels, they total something up to 1 *t*rillion annually.
> 
> ...


Yes, link to substantiate the 37.5 billion, please, of oil subsidies, NOT tax breaks. Hard cash, like Solyndra got......Thanks......Joe


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

joebill said:


> Yes, link to substantiate the 37.5 billion, please, of oil subsidies, NOT tax breaks. Hard cash, like Solyndra got......Thanks......Joe


Reading the link they got loans which they paid back, unlike Solyndra which went broke.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Concerning bringing back jobs, if you are depending on somebody else, i feel sorry for you. The best jobs I ever had were created by me, and I didn't waste a lot of money or energy getting started, either.
I'll give you an example, not of myself, but an old black gent who I ran into in my business around 1976. he had brought in a parking lot blower for repair and we got to talking. he told me;

" I got off a buss here in 1957, and I had $18 in my poicket and a wife and 3 kids at home in Tenn. who were in worser shape than me. I got me a job picking up trash and scrap paper from parking lots around town and sweeping up. After my first week, I quit the job and told the boss I wouldn't be back, 'cause I had a better job.'

The boss asked me "what you going to be working at?" and I told him, "just sweeping up, picking up trash and paper from parking lots" He asked me "who you working for that pays more than me?" and I told him "ME".

"I had went around and bid on all the parking lots I'd swept up that last week, and got the work on most of them, got maybe three times more money without the boss"

When I knew him, he had a fleet of Tennant parking lot sweepers on trailers, new pickup trucks to tow the trailers, his sons driving the trucks, plus another crew doing the smaller jobs with the blowers and brooms. 

His guys did the best work for the right price, got there on time, kept the equipment shining, took pride in their work and didn't spit skoal juice in the potted plants or hit on the secretary, which means they were pros.

Plenty of jobs out there, you just have to be a pro and take them away from those who are not. I know several handymen, basic skills like stop a dripping faucet, paint a porch, fix a busted pipe, that charge like they were auto mechanics and keep busy all the time. They just behave like pros, not out-of-work whiners.

I knew anther guy who had been on welfare his entire life, my neighbor kept giving him trouble over being a leech on society, so he got a bicycle (prob'ly stole it, don't do that) and a bucket and squeegee and went down the street to every business, offering to wash their windows, 'cause he was good at washing windows. Took about a month to get a GOOD route set up, and he was making a decent wage, then he found out that he could sell the route and go back on welfare, so he did. Not such a good story, but that is the other side.

Point is, even what is thought of as drudge work pays pretty well if you fire your boss. I had skills that paid a bit better, but I never would have gotten more than a bare living out of them if I had been saddled with a boss all those years......good luck. ...Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Thanks for the speech on meritocracy, joe. But I'm honestly not sure how it applies to the current discussion. Further, not everyone is capable of starting their own business. I'm tempted to be intolerant of people who can't, but I realize it takes a certain mindset and dedication.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

wiscto said:


> About 25% of Switzerland's working citizens are members of trade unions. Only about 37% of Swiss own their own homes, meaning they're butts belong to their landlords.


Not according to Swiss law. Landlords have far less control than in the US.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

joebill said:


> Yes, link to substantiate the 37.5 billion, please, of oil subsidies, NOT tax breaks. Hard cash, like Solyndra got......Thanks......Joe


 LOL, youâre having me on, right? Please donât tell me you seriously donât understand that these are *exactly the same thing*. Subsidies come in a wide variety of configurations: Seed money to get a new venture started, tax breaks for established businesses. Same dealio. Itâs *all* cash, right out of the pockets of taxpayers. You did notice that the entire link was about *subsidies*, right? 

How is a taxpayerâs dollar worth more or less in the form of a tax break than as seed money? Either way, you paid for it, and so did I.

About those loans that were repaidâ¦ makes me wonder all the more about those asterisks in the list provided by *Fishindude*. Maybe thatâs the significance of those, too. Loans that were repaid. Iâll await the linkie to find out. I'd say it's a reasonable assumption, though.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Fishindude said:


> This stuff doesn't work and frequently fails even when a bunch of federal money is thrown at it to help.


 What 'stuff' doesn't work? Many of the US solar manufacturers have indeed gone out of buisiness, not because the technology 'doesnt' work', but because the Chinese government plowed BILLIONS into their own countries solar industry, which drastically drove down the price of PV and undercut the US manufacturers. Pretty tough to stay in business when your product is suddenly worth one quarter of what it was a year ago. Ask the oil companies how that works.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> What 'stuff' doesn't work? Many of the US solar manufacturers have indeed gone out of buisiness, not because the technology 'doesnt' work', but because the Chinese government plowed BILLIONS into their own countries solar industry, which drastically drove down the price of PV and undercut the US manufacturers. Pretty tough to stay in business when your product is suddenly worth one quarter of what it was a year ago. Ask the oil companies how that works.


Are you suggesting we should "out-subsidized" the Chinese with our solar manufacturers?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Link to source for your data, please? I'd like to determine the meaning of all those asterisks.
> 
> Meantime, don't forget to compare those vast sums of money to the amounts of subsidies for fossil fuels -- already well-established industries -- of roughly 37.5 *b*illion annually from just the USA. If you include global subsidies for fossil fuels, they total something up to 1 *t*rillion annually.
> 
> ...


Got a better source for those claims? The site linked is biased and their "facts" are too vague in nature.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> For sure.
> 
> The U.S. attacks against the Germans were absolutely an offensive military maneuver, even if for obvious reasons.
> 
> Israel claims that by killing of Palestinian civilians they are simply defending themselves.


Hamas are (is?) civilians.

Also, emphasis mine:


> Amnesty International said in a report on Wednesday that *Hamas committed war crimes against Palestinian civilians* in the Gaza Strip during last year's war with Israel.
> A ceasefire last August ended 50 days of fighting between Gaza fighters and Israel in which health officials said more than 2,100 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed. Israel put the number of its dead at 67 soldiers and six civilians.


http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...mitted-war-crimes-against-gaza-civilians.html


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

5 pages of yada yada and the real causes have not been underscored. Congress subsidizes those who sponsor its' members. Lobbyists provide the 
conduit for the distribution of the largess that is campaign contributions and other emoluments that are provided quid pro quo. Congress makes the law that creates every tax break, grant, loan, relaxed regulation, government
interference and on and on ad infinitem. The system has become corrupt beyond comprehension.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yes, your Federal Government is little more than a vast money laundering scheme where money is stolen from "lessor" citizens (that would be you and me) given, by law, to favored industries, (oil, corn, "green", etc..) from which government officials get fat gobs of it back through campaign contributions and other forms of illicit payments. How do you think law makers can spend a few years in D.C., making ~$170,000/year and come out multi millionaires?


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

*What 'stuff' doesn't work? *

Solar and wind power don't work.
They are not competitive with conventional electrical generation methods; coal, hydro, nuke & nat gas if the government subsidies for solar and wind are taken out of the equation.

Read somewhere that a solar panel costs more to make than it will ever generate in electrical savings. While I can't verify this, I tend to believe it. Guessing those huge windmills are similar considering they cost $1.2 to $2.3 mil apiece installed.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Thanks for the speech on meritocracy, joe. But I'm honestly not sure how it applies to the current discussion. Further, not everyone is capable of starting their own business. I'm tempted to be intolerant of people who can't, but I realize it takes a certain mindset and dedication.


The discussion was, short time back, about bringing jobs back from overseas.

A guy who is incapable of doing the same job he has been doing, only without a boss, is not going to have a stellar carerr as an employee either. Sometimes you can teach them how by telling them to "pretend you are moonlighting" and they begin to understand.

It ain't rocket surgery......Joe


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes they work, wind power does work very well in KILLING Bald Eagles and others~! They work very well in THAT.
They also make pretty good lightening rods. LOL


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> LOL, youâre having me on, right? Please donât tell me you seriously donât understand that these are *exactly the same thing*. Subsidies come in a wide variety of configurations: Seed money to get a new venture started, tax breaks for established businesses. Same dealio. Itâs *all* cash, right out of the pockets of taxpayers. You did notice that the entire link was about *subsidies*, right?
> 
> How is a taxpayerâs dollar worth more or less in the form of a tax break than as seed money? Either way, you paid for it, and so did I.
> 
> About those loans that were repaidâ¦ makes me wonder all the more about those asterisks in the list provided by *Fishindude*. Maybe thatâs the significance of those, too. Loans that were repaid. Iâll await the linkie to find out. I'd say it's a reasonable assumption, though.


Not the same thing. A tax break is something you give a company that is PAYING TAXES, not one that is going broke and taking you with it. I'm not big on subsidies for ANYBODY, but in general if you are going to subsidize somebody, make it somebody who will make money, pay taxes, keep their employees working, expand, make product that shows a profit at the market price.

Do NOT pay people to be LOSERS! Especailly if the only thing they have ever done right is to take taxpayer money and donate it to your campaign fund.

I know that when you get into oil subsidies, it's easy to make it look however you want it. You can claim that oil companies should be paying more for what they pump on government land, or claim that no matter where the oil is, it belongs to the government. You can claim almost anything, and enemies of traditional energy have done so.

Take a look, though, at exactly what all is included in the term "oil subsidies", and in the totals claimed, and then compare those actions to giving all those millions to a failing company that did nothing for anybody except Obama's campaign fund.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energys...persist-even-liberals-love-them/#72eda83a1e86

YOU get to choose what to cut. Most liberals will not want to cut anything....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> What 'stuff' doesn't work? Many of the US solar manufacturers have indeed gone out of buisiness, not because the technology 'doesnt' work', but because the Chinese government plowed BILLIONS into their own countries solar industry, which drastically drove down the price of PV and undercut the US manufacturers. Pretty tough to stay in business when your product is suddenly worth one quarter of what it was a year ago. Ask the oil companies how that works.


The "stuff that doesn't work" is plowing government money into schemes that any competent businessman or woman would have known full well was going to be taken over by foreign competition. 

Government seed money is like a beacon flashing in outer space, "calling all scammers", because those who base a startup on federal money are NOT going to be the shapest knives in the drawer, and might just be the most desireable competition on earth, since the government will nearly FORCE sales by creating an emotional demand.

If it were practical, private investors would be ready and willing to take it on without government support. Good rule of thumb; IF private money doesn't want it, neither do we.. Sorry for the mess. Keyboard headed for trash pile....Joe


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why are the subsidies to coal ignored ? Many. Have been built into it over many generations.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I got a quote for a solar system with adequate capacity to run my home & farmstead which is just a 200 amp service. It required a bank of solar panels approx. 70' long x 10' tall at a cost of approx. $70,000. This included no batteries for storage so I still had to remain on the grid if I wanted power when the sun wasn't shining.

My electric bill runs about $2400 per year, so (29) years to recover the original outlay, and chances are the equipment won't even last that long.

But ...... here's the kicker and here is how they sell this stuff. I could get a 30% tax write off on year one after installation, then my excess power produced during sunny days would be re-sold on the grid to companies (coal) that were required by law to purchase "green energy credits" so they can claim that X portion of the power they produce is green. With the tax write off and selling green energy credits over a twenty year period, he said my out of pocket would be under $40,000 which is still a 16 year payback. He estimated the equipment was good for maybe 20 years.

Long and the short of it is, that the rest of you other American taxpayers would be required to kick in a significant contribution for this system to come anywhere near making financial sense. I did not do the install, because even with those breaks, I just don't see the return being there, and the initial cash outlay is huge.

NOTE - Of the two, I think solar is better than wind, because you don't have all of those moving mechanical parts in a turbine to wear out and require maintenance.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> Got a better source for those claims? The site linked is biased and their "facts" are too vague in nature.


http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

The survey counts everything from direct subsides to road maintenance that oil companies use. At least $1T of it is directly accorded to the companies.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
> 
> The survey counts everything from direct subsides to road maintenance that oil companies use. At least $1T of it is directly accorded to the companies.


Not exactly an objective report there either. 

_Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.

_The EPA sets the rules about environmental damage and levies fines for violations in this country. Not the IRS, not in the tax code. Gee, do ya suppose IMF included any of those fines in their numbers? I would bet not. Did they allow for the, what, $20billion that BP paid up for the Gulf spill damage? My guess is, no.

Again, the link is too vague and propaganda-like to evaluate the information being reported. 
I think these biased reports take the normal business tax deductions - those that any corporation doing business in America is entitled to take - relabel them as "subsidies" and presto chango, they have a shocking big number to use for propaganda. The cost of exploring for oil and extracting it, transporting it and processing it, those are huge numbers, so of course the deductions for those costs will be too.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> Got a better source for those claims? The site linked is biased and their "facts" are too vague in nature.


Really? The link contains other links to their sources for their data, but I guess that's more work than you cared to do.

Here are a few more links:

https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA FFSR progress report to G20 2014 Final.pdf

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

Next time you find one of my sources lacking, I'll invite you to refute what I posted, not permit you tell me to do your homework. But just this once.

Here's the search term I used: "USA subsidies for fossil fuel companies."

That should get you started.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

joebill said:


> Not the same thing. A tax break is something you give a company that is PAYING TAXES, not one that is going broke and taking you with it. I'm not big on subsidies for ANYBODY, but in general if you are going to subsidize somebody, make it somebody who will make money, pay taxes, keep their employees working, expand, make product that shows a profit at the market price.
> 
> Do NOT pay people to be LOSERS! Especailly if the only thing they have ever done right is to take taxpayer money and donate it to your campaign fund.
> 
> ...


Your assertion is just laughable to me. In this country, we have always paid subsidies to support industries that we deem are in our national interests, irrespective of whether they paid taxes for them. It's idiotic and incorrect to assume subsidies are only given to companies that pay taxes. 

I live in a state that received federal subsidies for many years solely because the federal government deemed it in our best national interest for Oregon to grow timber instead of cultivating an economy based on industry. We didn't pay taxes to receive those, either.

The rest of your assertions are, as is frequently the case, substantiated by nothing, tangential in nature and just an excuse to rant.

As for your Forbes link, I don't consider Forbes a credible source for anything relating to climate change or fossil fuels policy, not since Steve Forbes became its President, CEO and Editor in Chief. In addition to being some weird cross between a Libertarian and a Republican, he is strongly political in his views and the magazine reflects his biases. Climate change denier, still believes in trickle-down economics, is a commentator on Fox News. He has strong ties to the Koch brothers, the Heritage Foundation (read Koch brothers) and the American Enterprise Institute (can you guess? More Koch brothers). You know. Oil guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

no really said:


> It's bad when it's done in any sector. Government doesn't seem to be quite as careful of investments and returns as they should be.


Well Yeah, It's not their money.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Raeven said:


> In addition to being some weird cross between a Libertarian and a Republican,
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes


Like that's a bad thing...:nono::whistlin::happy2:


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Really? The link contains other links to their sources for their data, but I guess that's more work than you cared to do.
> 
> Here are a few more links:
> 
> ...


The first one, that should tell the tale. From the horse's mouth. 

Honest, I didn't ask you to do my homework, just provide a not-so-biased source for what was asserted. That makes it your homework doesn't it? But, either way, thanks. I might even sip a bourbon in your honor.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> The first one, that should tell the tale. From the horse's mouth.
> 
> Honest, I didn't ask you to do my homework, just provide a not-so-biased source for what was asserted. That makes it your homework doesn't it? But, either way, thanks. I might even sip a bourbon in your honor.


If I find fault with someone's supporting documentation, then I find the data that demonstrates what the flaw is. I don't ask them for a better link. It's on me to refute what they asserted, not for them to come up with something I find worthy to rely upon.

Enjoy your bourbon.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> Not exactly an objective report there either.
> 
> _Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.
> 
> ...


Well, you can read the full study. I read about half. 

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> If I find fault with someone's supporting documentation, then I find the data that demonstrates what the flaw is. I don't ask them for a better link. It's on me to refute what they asserted, not for them to come up with something I find worthy to rely upon.
> 
> Enjoy your bourbon.


When I've asked for proof or pointed out the flawed logic in your posts, you ran away!


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Your assertion is just laughable to me. In this country, we have always paid subsidies to support industries that we deem are in our national interests, irrespective of whether they paid taxes for them. It's idiotic and incorrect to assume subsidies are only given to companies that pay taxes.
> 
> I live in a state that received federal subsidies for many years solely because the federal government deemed it in our best national interest for Oregon to grow timber instead of cultivating an economy based on industry. We didn't pay taxes to receive those, either.
> 
> ...


The fact that you cannot refute anything he says, because it is all true, and you know it, leaves you little choice but to either admit that you have been corrected or claim that Forbes is too stupid and biased to breathe. 

No question you would choose door#2

ANY link that you do not agree with is stupid, biased, ignorant. The fact that he does not agree with you automatically makes him that way. 

I can't undertstand how he got to be a gazillionare with his name a household word, and folks seeking and following his advice and getting rich when he is so stupid, and you, who know absolutely everything,......well, no need to elaborate.

Is there anything in that article that you can refute? I doubt it. He mostly just listed all of the things that go into what you folks claim are "oil subsidies", and that is easy enough to check out. Can't find me a lie? Small wonder, I'm pretty sure there are none.

I'm fully aware that government gives subsidies all of the time to try and pick winners and losers in business I'm also aware that they mostly screw up whatever they ae trying to do and support what will soon beome losers, because if they were going to be winners they would do so with private money.

The IRS, years ago, closed down a Nevada Brothel, or they WERE going to close it down, until some genius decided that they should just run it at a profit. They became the first outfit in history so incompetent that they could lose money running a cathouse. Nobody was surprised. They are the finest money-losers on the planet, and their track record on green energy confirms it....Joe


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> When I've asked for proof or pointed out the flawed logic in your posts, you ran away!


 Sure thing, Jeffrey.  Thatâs exactly what happened. Your arguments are so well crafted, so incisive and ironclad, so well-sourced and intellectualâ¦ I just throw in the towel every time I see one of them.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

joebill said:


> The fact that you cannot refute anything he says, because it is all true, and you know it, leaves you little choice but to either admit that you have been corrected or claim that Forbes is too stupid and biased to breathe.
> 
> No question you would choose door#2
> 
> ...


 Nothing to refute. You linked to an opinion piece from 2012 from a fossil fuels energy whore who specializes in profiting from the natural gas industry and who occasionally writes for Forbes, as so many of them do. Here&#8217;s a link to another fine piece of his:

http://www.energystrategist.com/glp/38514/naturalgas.html

When you learn to ferret out an obvious bias, let me know.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Sure thing, Jeffrey.  Thatâs exactly what happened. Your arguments are so well crafted, so incisive and ironclad, so well-sourced and intellectualâ¦ I just throw in the towel every time I see one of them.


Should I post them here for all to see? If that wasn't what happened, please enlighten us!


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Should I post them here for all to see? If that wasn't what happened, please enlighten us!


Please feel free, if it's that important to you. I have no idea what you could be referring to, but I won't pretend I don't often ignore your posts. Sorry, but I do.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> If I find fault with someone's supporting documentation, then I find the data that demonstrates what the flaw is. I don't ask them for a better link. It's on me to refute what they asserted, not for them to come up with something I find worthy to rely upon.
> 
> Enjoy your bourbon.


Funny how times change over a few minutes, isn't it?......Joe


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

joebill said:


> Funny how times change over a few minutes, isn't it?......Joe


I provided you with an argument and supporting links that demonstrate the writer's bias. That's data. There's nothing more to do, even if you want to believe there is. 

You are obviously easily persuaded by opinion pieces, and that's your right. I prefer facts offered without bias.

What's posted is posted, and people can decide for themselves. I won't be offering anything more.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Nothing to refute. You linked to an opinion piece from 2012 from a fossil fuels energy whore who specializes in profiting from the natural gas industry and who occasionally writes for Forbes, as so many of them do. Hereâs a link to another fine piece of his:
> 
> http://www.energystrategist.com/glp/38514/naturalgas.html
> 
> When you learn to ferret out an obvious bias, let me know.


I linked to an article by a very smart guy with solid facts and numbers to back them up, which is absolutely more than you can tolerate.

Given an opportunity to refute a single fact or figure, you chose to denigrate the author by showing that he knows how to MAKE MONEY, selling stuff that folks really want to buy for the price at which it is offered.

Aparently, to you, that is the maximum insult that can be offered. You are aparently ignorant of the established fact that wihout profits, society, government, green energy, welfare, EVERYTHING stops dead. That is what pays for it all. The jobs, the government, EVERYTHING. No profits, no taxes, no government income.

The previous link you posted on forbes was not negative, either, but a basic history on a guy who has done very well for himself and those who have taken his advice.

Do you honestly believe that all a guy has to do to qualify as evil is to earn a tidy profit without breaking any laws? These are the folks who have made Hilary rich beyond most people's wildest dreams! What does that make her?

Maybe you need to stop and explain your premise, because I think you are not making sense to most folks right now. Try to be specific as to what Forbes has done that makes perfectly logical statements and numbers not count. I'm dumbfounded!

Now, I need a drink, too.....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> I provided you with an argument and supporting links that demonstrate the writer's bias. That's data. There's nothing more to do, even if you want to believe there is.
> 
> You are obviously easily persuaded by opinion pieces, and that's your right. I prefer facts offered without bias.
> 
> What's posted is posted, and people can decide for themselves. I won't be offering anything more.


Why am I not surprised?.....Joe


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

joebill said:


> Why am I not surprised?.....Joe


 It's clear you don't grasp the point Iâm trying to make. 

Iâm not saying Forbes is stupid. Far from it. Iâm saying the publication brings an obvious bias. They certainly do hope to influence the public debate. Itâs an *opinion* piece. Mr. Rapier can say whatever he wants. I followed his links. They are offered by fossil fuels companies. For those reasons, I donât find Forbes or the author to be unimpeachable sources of factual information when they are offered for the truth of the state of subsidies in the fossil fuels industry. 

I offered *multiple* links on the subsidies issue that are unbiased and from a variety of impartial sources that keep track of these things. Iâm sorry you have chosen to not avail yourself of their information. Thatâs the refutation to your *one* link.

You can indulge your confirmation bias if you choose, but I wonât. Same with the author of your link. I donât care if heâs successful or that he makes his living in the natural gas industry. What I object to is someone pretending that he doesnât bring an obvious agenda to his âfacts.â You canât see that, but given how many of your own innate prejudices and wrong assumptions are on display in your characterizations of âliberals,â it is to be expected.

Carry on with your generic attacks on âliberals.â Such is the refuge of one who has no real point to make. Itâs one of JeffreyDâs favorite tactics and why I frequently ignore his posts.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> I linked to an article by a very smart guy with solid facts and numbers to back them up, which is absolutely more than you can tolerate.
> 
> Given an opportunity to refute a single fact or figure, you chose to denigrate the author by showing that he knows how to MAKE MONEY, selling stuff that folks really want to buy for the price at which it is offered.
> 
> ...


It's safe to say Raeven didn't offer a socialistic speech, but you have definitely offered a free market racketeer speech. 

I'm not opposed to making money, and neither is anyone else. That's why the Wall Street Journal has a total flat-line demographic across the right-left spectrum. People like making money. But we shouldn't sacrifice the environment for profit.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Raeven said:


> When you learn to ferret out an obvious bias, let me know.


Joebill already found yours.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

When the facts go against you, make it about the people who present them, I guess.

I have no idea how many people read the WSJ or Forbes, but they go there for facts, not fiction, and they get them.
A simple enumerated list of all of the items that are included in what greenies refer to as "oil subsidies" was pretty revealing to me, and should be to most folks. A great deal of it is US goverrnment social programs that not one liberal would dream of cutting, yet they want to beat oil companies over the head with them as handouts to "big oil".

That's a fact. Actually, a collection of them.

Yes, those facts come from somebody in the business, but you certainly will not learn those FACTS by reading mother earth news or listening to greenies or anybody who is opposed to fossil fuel burning. If they ever knew them they would do their best to forget them.

I have to assume that all of this diversion is about distracting from the FACT that billions of tax dollars have been flushed down the rathole of green energy without benifiting anybody except those who managed to divert large chunks of it into their campaign funds before the companies went belly up, which was as predicatble as moonrise. The previous administration refused the Solyndra loan, predicting to the month when they would go broke, exactly.

I used to get offers all the time to get involved in this stuff. Some guy had a "contact" in government and could "wrap up" some loans or grants from uncle sugar, and all "we" had to do was......at that point I always cut them off.

Not that I never made mistakes about who I was dealing with, but in the case of the "fashion grants", as I called them, they were just riding the soup of the day, often no background, betting they could get the money if somebody else did all the work. Some of the stupid things that got created and paid for would have made an engineer barf, but they were good enough to get government money, and that is what counted.

There are a world of products on drawing boards all over the nation that are not getting built because investors undertand that those particular products would be taken over by the Chinese at this time if they were created and promoted and became good sellers. The fact that the solar industry had no clue that this was going to happen tells you all you need to know about how well suited they were for business, or perhaps how little they cared as long as they got that big shot of cash to split with the politicos who made it possible.....Joe


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Rabbit hole.

:run:


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> It's safe to say Raeven didn't offer a socialistic speech, but you have definitely offered a free market racketeer speech.
> 
> I'm not opposed to making money, and neither is anyone else. That's why the Wall Street Journal has a total flat-line demographic across the right-left spectrum. People like making money. But we shouldn't sacrifice the environment for profit.


I assure you that if Forbes were a racketeer,he would be in prison on Rico charges before breakfast. too many libs want him there.

On second thught, without folks like Forbes, there would be no bill and hilary, so maybe not....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> I assure you that if Forbes were a racketeer,he would be in prison on Rico charges before breakfast. too many libs want him there.
> 
> On second thught, without folks like Forbes, there would be no bill and hilary, so maybe not....Joe


You make a good point that oil subsidies aren't the best argument against the oil companies when they've been applied frequently because they make the world, as it were, work better. And a lot of the things in the IMF report contain things that normal people use as well as the oil companies, such as roads, healthcare, and infrastructure. And yes, most likely as soon as the green energy sector gets running, they'll keep getting more government handouts. That's just how the system works now, I guess.

But one thing I can assure you of: there is very little possibility of green energy blowing up, creating toxic oils spills from ships, trains, semis, or pipelines, polluting rivers, stream, oceans, fields, destroying people's health from fumes, particulates, contact, ingestion, etc, and destroying landscapes from mining, drilling, fracking, etc. 

So even if AGW is not a problem, we have a lot of reasons to stop using fossil fuels.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

You think that there won't be landscapes destroyed developing the resources needed for alternative energy? Some of the mining sites for the metals that are in our smartphones and laptops look pretty bad. What would it look like if we had to make electric car batteries, too?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> You think that there won't be landscapes destroyed developing the resources needed for alternative energy? Some of the mining sites for the metals that are in our smartphones and laptops look pretty bad. What would it look like if we had to make electric car batteries, too?


It's not a perfect solution. The perfect solution is for everyone to live like a nomad. Gonna happen? Nope. People are going to keep buying their laptops, the computers, and their batteries. We may have to mine some toxic metals, and I'm not a fan of that, but it's that option or keep having oil spills.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> You make a good point that oil subsidies aren't the best argument against the oil companies when they've been applied frequently because they make the world, as it were, work better. And a lot of the things in the IMF report contain things that normal people use as well as the oil companies, such as roads, healthcare, and infrastructure. And yes, most likely as soon as the green energy sector gets running, they'll keep getting more government handouts. That's just how the system works now, I guess.
> 
> But one thing I can assure you of: there is very little possibility of green energy blowing up, creating toxic oils spills from ships, trains, semis, or pipelines, polluting rivers, stream, oceans, fields, destroying people's health from fumes, particulates, contact, ingestion, etc, and destroying landscapes from mining, drilling, fracking, etc.
> 
> So even if AGW is not a problem, we have a lot of reasons to stop using fossil fuels.


And there it is! 

Every argument starts out with "there is absolutely no question about man made global warming"....., and works it's way down to "well, even if there really IS no Manmade Global Warming"........and we get down to whatever was trying to be sold through the threat of doomsday in the first place. At last.

Green energy does, of course, destroy landscapes, and if you think that destroying economies and sending the price of heating and cooling people's homes through the ceiing, killing thousands of jobs, raising taxes, condemning existing low-cost power producers, and transpoting endless oversize loads the length and breadth of the nation is not damaging to health, think again. The greenies tried to cobble together a system that needs miles and miles of power lines and supporting infrastructure to bring power from places where nobody has to look at the ugliness except the critters all thge way to population centers without causing any problems.

It might work OK someday, but someday is a long way off, and my experience is that as soon as the politicos have squeezed all they can out of it for their personal gain, then, stopped subsidizing it and getting the kickbacks, it will be over with.

I have heard all this crap before. Nuclear energy was supposed to be free! Just a surcharge to maintain the lines. The interstate hyway system was sold as every overpass housing a bomb shelter for us to die in when the Soviets bombed us.

I'm all for anything that operates in true competition, dollar for dollar, no government choosing winners and losers. When green energy achieves that level of effiency, bring it around. Just stop bankrupting the country and the economy with it UNTIL you have achieved it. 

Involving government in it will not make it work. Quite the opposite, obviously. And stop destroying what works, because what you are promoting will not be ready to take over for a very long time, if ever.....Joe


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Raeven said:


> Really? The link contains other links to their sources for their data, but I guess that's more work than you cared to do.
> 
> Here are a few more links:
> 
> ...


Please don't publish just the link. Could you provide the salient point from the link too?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Two of the links are from anti-oil crusaders, which, by Raven's own rules make them exempt from consideration.

The other is from US gov. and states that oil drillers ACTUALLY get to deduct drilling costs from income for tax purposes and also ditto depletion of reserves on any particular well.

They ALSO get to deduct oil exploration, which other manufacturers don't get to do, but them other manufacturers don't spend money exploring for oil.

Um, let's see. they pay capital gains tax on coal reserves instead of income tax and if they paid income tax it would be more.

I could drone on, but none of these things are buckets of cash like green energy got, but policies that may or may not favor oil over other industries at tax time. Some of the stuff listed is available to any manufacturer, but you could spend a week looking it all up.

The main value in looking at the .gov site is that they admit that their main complaint is that any tax consideration for oil is;

"inconsistent with the
Administration&#8217;s policy of supporting a clean
energy economy, reducing our reliance on oil,
and cutting carbon pollution. Moreover, the
tax subsidy for oil and natural gas must
ultimately be financed with taxes that result in
underinvestment in other, potentially more
productive, areas of the economy."

In other words, "we have a lot more boondoggles we want to launch so we need to raise taxes on oil companies to get them off of the ground and reduce competition from oil and gas, because, face it, they can kick our butts on price"......Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> In other words, "we have a lot more boondoggles we want to launch so we need to raise taxes on oil companies to get them off of the ground and reduce competition from oil and gas, because, face it, they can kick our butts on price"......Joe


 Solar is no boondoggle, as I type this I am enjoying nice cool air conditioning, running straight off the solar panel array/inverter. Anyone who says it 'doesn't work' is simply repeating some ignorant nonsense they heard somewhere. 
And sure, good old coal is cheaper than solar panels, but solar is catching up all the time... those panels get more and more efficient every year, and folks are now working on panels that use more common elements, not the 'rare earth' stuff... so they're only going to get cheaper. 
I realize solar panels will always have a 'hippie environmentalist' connotation to them, to some folks at least, but don't let that fool you into thinking they're a 'boondoggle'. The do work, and they work well. They also have ZERO moving parts,require very little maintenence, and have a very long working life.
Personally I'd rather see my tax money go to fund research into solar power, rather than more foreign policy adventurism that only causes MORE problems.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

joebill said:


> The main value in looking at the .gov site is that they admit that their main complaint is that any tax consideration for oil is;
> 
> "inconsistent with the
> Administrationâs policy of supporting a clean
> ...


Let's put it another more honest way: 

âThe gasoline crack of history is over, folks. Itâs time to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and turn our investment dollars toward *renewable* energy sources that wonât destroy our habitat. Whatâs left in the ground will be too expensive to get to anyway and causes more irreparable harm than itâs worth. It would be great if we became the leaders in renewables, else we'll be purchasing the technology from Japan, China, Australia or other nations that were smart enough to grab the opportunity.â

You presented exactly one questionable, old, biased opinion link. Your cohort never did source his list for renewable subsidies. I guess when you can't present credible evidence to support a counter argument, you resort to calling facts lies.

The worst kind of willful ignorance.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

I am pro solar, Where it makes sense. We aren't getting off oil anytime soon because nothing we currently have can replace how much energy there is in a gallon of gas or diesel. Willful ignorance is believing otherwise and the ridiculous numbers cited as petro subsidies.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Please don't publish just the link. Could you provide the salient point from the link too?


In other words, you don't want to bothered with doing too much reading.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> It's safe to say Raeven didn't offer a socialistic speech, but you have definitely offered a free market racketeer speech.
> 
> I'm not opposed to making money, and neither is anyone else. That's why the Wall Street Journal has a total flat-line demographic across the right-left spectrum. People like making money. But we shouldn't sacrifice the environment for profit.


Perhaps you know of a way to provide goods or services without using raw materials and energy to produce products needed by society? Profit or not... Producing the goods needed by our population impacts our environment.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps you know of a way to provide goods or services without using raw materials and energy to produce products needed by society? Profit or not... Producing the goods needed by our population impacts our environment.


Even producing famously green products like Tesla cars and organic food can have an environmental impact. Maybe some of what we do is blown out of proportion, but there are some common-sense things we can do to quench our consumption. That probably means kicking some aspect of the economy in the teeth, but honestly, do we really need malls with 150 stores selling hundreds of kinds of the same shoe?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well the largest Mall in the USA The Mall Of America in MN. Is in a building project to get Twice The Size it is, and many people that work there will Live, Play, Eat and school right THERE. No need to commute at all. Great planning for those that want to work at M0A.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Even producing famously green products like Tesla cars and organic food can have an environmental impact. Maybe some of what we do is blown out of proportion, but there are some common-sense things we can do to quench our consumption. That probably means kicking some aspect of the economy in the teeth, but honestly, do we really need malls with 150 stores selling hundreds of kinds of the same shoe?


Oh yes, a planned economy from some central gov't has always worked out so well. The elite are so sure they know better than the marketplace in how to "manage" the economy for the elite's chosen goals at the time, whether it be income equality, social justice, and now you for some vague environmental goal, or maybe you just hate shoes. 

So how did that central planned economy work out in the USSR? 


OK, maybe China?


Cambodia? That was a real victory for social justice, yes?



OK, those failures are in the past. They don't count for what ever reasons you're thinking. So let's look today. How is Venezuela doing?


Here's the deal, some bureaucrat in the capital NEVER allocates goods and resources better than the market place. No central gov't ever "quenched consumption" for long without causing greater hardship for the people and worse environmental damage. Yes, the marketplace has its failures along the way, but when is the last time any democratic capitalist country had mass starvation, mass jailed business people for the crimes of delivering the goods people want, or hyper inflation due to an unplanned economy? The answer is never. Democratic capitalist countries have suffered thru those failures only when too much uncontrolled gov't and gov't spending ruined the economy. Gov't is the problem. More gov't deciding how many shoe stores go in each mall is not part of the solution. 

If you want to compare pollution, the most polluted countries in the world are communist. The poorest countries in the world, where people starve and the forests have been stripped for firewood for heat and cooking fuel, are those where a central powerful gov't tried to plan the economy. And the environmental damage of not having an inexpensive and efficient fuel source is greater than the environmental damage from oil. Look at Lebanon. 2000 years ago it was forested. Now it is a man made desert for the most part. There is relatively no continuing damage from all the oil spills at sea during WW2, the oceans have healed themselves. But nature has not been able to heal the damage to Lebanon where the poor continue to damage the environment in ways that "rich" oil burning economies do not. 

If you want to heal the environment, we either get rid of 5 billion people or we raise the standard of living for 5B people. Wealthy, free nations demand cleaner environments. Wealthy nations have gotten wealthy due to economic freedom, property rights, and cheap, available energy in the form of oil. The world needs more cheap energy, not a know-nothing gov't lover kicking the teeth of some aspect of the economy with his "common-sense" solutions that don't work. 

You either believe in capitalism or you don't. Capitalism isn't perfect. There are always winners and losers. But there are always lots of winners and relatively few losers in capitalism. In planned economies there are lots of losers and relatively few winners. It has been that way in EVERY country.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You wrote;

"Solar is no boondoggle, as I type this I am enjoying nice cool air conditioning, running straight off the solar panel array/inverter. Anyone who says it 'doesn't work' is simply repeating some ignorant nonsense they heard somewhere. "

Well, let me begin by saying, since I asssume that I helped pay for those panels, you are welcome.

Nobody ever said that PV does not turn sunshine into electricity. I had an antique book in my collection dating from the 1920's explaining how to oxidize a copper disc with a torch and attach silver wire, seal with something and you would get a voltage reading when you put it in the sunshine. Claiming that I think solar panels do not work in that sense is dishonest and insulting. 

What does NOT work is trying to short-circuit normal R&D by pouring in massive gluts of taxpayer money, starting government sponsored hate campaigns against the competition, inventing doomsday scenarios that attempt to market by fear, rushing technology into the marketplace before it is ready with all of the effieciency of a global war. What you see as a grand new technology, the folks who write the checks see as a political ploy to use your passion to get them both wealthy and elected. Here is an example of Not-ready-for-prime-time technology; 

http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/giant-solar-plant-on-verge-of-1-6-billion-boondoggle/

And another example of folks who thought just because it was solar, money was not important
.
http://www.kitv.com/story/31239004/...ics-decision-to-shut-down-sun-edison-projects

THIS boondoogle is still going on all over the place, and no doubt if it crashes before Obama leaves office of if Hilary gets elected, they will get bailed out and whoever arranges it will get very rich and re-elected;

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2014/11/20/residential-solar-power/

Do you think that all this stuff is new? not hardly.

âOne of the interesting things about the future is that it always recedes before us,â said Ed Finn, the director of the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...d_battery_power_from_the_1950s_and_1960s.html

We have been hearing about solar cars most of my life, and while they certainly are possible, the government saying you should want one and demonizing those who do not will not make them sell to a large enough portion of the marketplace to bring down costs and increase practicality enough to put them over the hump that every product has to scale. You can't force things on people. You CAN pay them to put up with them, but that only lasts as long as you continue to pay, and we are already broke PLUS.

Now, if you want to see green energy grow, and I have nothing against it, try following THIS guy's advice.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...-let-its-federal-tax-credit-die-says-this-ceo

I know it sounds horrible, but there is no question in my mind that watermelon politicos have done more to harm green energy than all of us old ******** combined. (watrermelon= green outside, red inside) When folks see greenies burning Hummer dealerships and ELF doing what ELF does, and government not condemning it in the strongest terms, green becomes the color of the enemy, and when politicos PROMISE to skyrocket the price of electricity, is there any wonder that folks detest the idea and those who promote it?

When green energy is ready to stand on it's own, if ever, it will prevail. Until them, no matter how many companies and governments you bankrupt nor how many people you try to persuade by telling them they are ignorant hicks, (nice presentation, by the way) you are wasting taxpayer money that is not there to waste on a business model that relies on hatred and fear and politicos that may or may not be there for another term.....Joe


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> But one thing I can assure you of: there is very little possibility of green energy blowing up, creating toxic oils spills from ships, trains, semis, or pipelines, *polluting rivers, stream, oceans, fields, destroying people's health from fumes, particulates, contact, ingestion, etc, and destroying landscapes from mining*, drilling, fracking, etc.
> 
> So even if AGW is not a problem, we have a lot of reasons to stop using fossil fuels.


You might want to research that a little more. 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...r-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/


> Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.


Now imagine if it were being done on a large scale, comparable to what's done to obtain coal and oil. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid supporter of solar power. But it's irresponsible to claim that the environmental impact won't be just as significant (if not more so, we don't really know yet) as coal/oil production.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

The central planning of an economy was the subject of the book "The road to serfdom", which can be read online here;

http://hayekcenter.org/?p=682

by anyone who does not yet realize what a monumentaly stupid idea it has been every time it is tried......Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> Well, let me begin by saying, since I asssume that I helped pay for those panels, you are welcome.


 No, you did NOT help pay for them, but if you'd like to send me a check, I'l give you my address. 
As to your rants about government, of course anytime government gets involved with private industry the leeches come out to grab their 'share'. This is nothing new, and is not special to the renewable energy industry. You show me one nuclear reactor project that didn't receive government (ie, TAXPAYER) money.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> You might want to research that a little more.
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...r-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/
> 
> Now imagine if it were being done on a large scale, comparable to what's done to obtain coal and oil.
> ...


 Yeah, good thing uranaium mining, fracking, strip mining, and oil exploration is so environmentally friendly. I'm surprised you didn't mention all the precious birds killed by wind turbines. 
There is no such thing as 'free energy' nor 'clean energy', every form of resource extraction requires some form of environmental degradation, thats just the nature of the beast. Gotta crack a few eggs to make omelets, right?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Yeah, good thing uranaium mining, fracking, strip mining, and oil exploration is so environmentally friendly. I'm surprised you didn't mention all the precious birds killed by wind turbines.
> There is no such thing as 'free energy' nor 'clean energy', every form of resource extraction requires some form of environmental degradation, thats just the nature of the beast. Gotta crack a few eggs to make omelets, right?


I never said or implied that mining, fracking, etc are environmentally friendly. Just challenging the concept that solar won't have a significant impact as well.

The only real advantage of solar & wind over oil & coal is that they are renewable....which, in the very long run, will end up having less negative impact to the environment.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txsteader said:


> I never said or implied that mining, fracking, etc are environmentally friendly. Just challenging the concept that solar won't have a significant impact as well.
> 
> The only real advantage of solar & wind over oil & coal is that they are renewable....which, in the very long run, will end up having less negative impact to the environment.


I find it hard to believe solar panels could have anywhere near the environmental impact of coal and oil. Explosions, oil spills, wildlife habitat degradation, climate change, ocean warming, ocean acidification, fracking causes earthquakes, drilling damages local environs, and so on and so forth. Solar requires some extra space, a few rare earth metals, and some mining and a few toxic chemicals. Got anything else?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

greg273 said:


> There is no such thing as 'free energy' nor 'clean energy', every form of resource extraction requires some form of environmental degradation, thats just the nature of the beast. Gotta crack a few eggs to make omelets, right?


ding ding ding. yeah, that's the point. Glad you finally got it. Solar is no free lunch, at least as far as the technology exists today.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Hmmmmm does burning off your car tires cause any adverse conditions to the atmosphere? Just about every small town celebration in the summer has one of these going on at least one day of the celebration. LOL

A Huge Burnout Contest. And it will last HOURS. 3 to 4 Hours of one car after another after another after another. LOL

[YOUTUBE] ?v=M41W-iYVFqk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> Oh yes, a planned economy from some central gov't has always worked out so well. The elite are so sure they know better than the marketplace in how to "manage" the economy for the elite's chosen goals at the time, whether it be income equality, social justice, and now you for some vague environmental goal, or maybe you just hate shoes.
> 
> So how did that central planned economy work out in the USSR?
> 
> ...


I'm not advocating turning us int a socialist state to solve climate change, although I'm not saying it wouldn't work. However I think your examples are overly simplistic. The US accounts for only about 4% of the world population, but we consume 30% of global resources. Um, what? That's the sound of your weak argument getting torn to shreds. Giving everyone more money doesn't solve anything. But humanitarianism is definitely an interest of mine, and just about everyone who is worried about climate change is also worried about the global poor. Because, guess what, climate change disproportionately affects the poor! I did an entire presentation on it once. Basically, the flood the deltas, where poor people live, you have worse droughts, in areas poor people live, and you have worse storms, in areas poor people live... You see the theme here? So stop throwing around the mantra of just giving everyone more wealth, because that doesn't necessarily solve the problems!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm not advocating turning us int a socialist state to solve climate change, although I'm not saying it wouldn't work. However I think your examples are overly simplistic.


of course my examples were simplistic, this thread is for the "Land of the Stupid" and I didn't want to lose anyone such as those who might think socialism actually works well in the long run. However, my examples are true, at least in a generalized manner, meaning you might be able to find an outlier or two, but on the whole the themes are valid. 



> The US accounts for only about 4% of the world population, but we consume 30% of global resources. Um, what? That's the sound of your weak argument getting torn to shreds.


wow, talk about simplistic. Yes, there is plenty of waste in America, but what do we do with 30% of global resources? 

1. world's largest food exporter, more than #2 and 3 combined. The world goes hungry without us. http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-agricultural-exporters-map.html

2. world's largest exporter of all goods per capita https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html


3. world's largest donor of foreign aid http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.html

So simplistically saying the US consumes a disproportionate amount of world resources means you are blind to the fact that we use those resources to create products the world needs. And the foreign aid we give does not include the fact that as much as I wish it were not the case, the US is the primary operator for world wide 911. When there is a monsoon, typhoon, or even a plane crash, they don't look to Sweden or China for assistance. 



> giving everyone more money doesn't solve anything.


I agree with your strawman argument except that giving everyone more money might solve something. You'll note I didn't propose we give everyone more money. Giving money away does not create wealth. Africa has received lots of foreign aid and the recipient countries tend to do worse economically. It is the give a man a fish or teach a man to fish situation. 

http://www.academia.edu/202805/Foreign_aid_and_development_in_Africa_What_the_literature_says_and_what_the_reality_is "In this paper, we employ panel data methods, namely Pooled OLS, Random Effects, and Fixed Effects, to examine the impact of foreign aid on economic growth of East African countries over the period of 1985 to 2010. The results suggest that foreign aid has significant negative influence on economic growth for these countries." 



> So stop throwing around the mantra of just giving everyone more wealth, because that doesn't necessarily solve the problems!


well, you must have believed your strawman argument because you doubled down on your error. Go back and read the message to which you responded and try again. Did you honestly believe my comment, "raise the standard of living" means, "giving everyone more money"? 

I have no panacea for all the world's problems, I just know what has worked in general and failed in general. You advocate more failure when you wish to put your faith in fascist gov't policies to rule the market.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> of course my examples were simplistic, this thread is for the "Land of the Stupid" and I didn't want to lose anyone such as those who might think socialism actually works well in the long run. However, my examples are true, at least in a generalized manner, meaning you might be able to find an outlier or two, but on the whole the themes are valid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's quite easy to say that the current batch of Republicans are voting for a fascist. The Democrats are just voting for another corrupt Wall Street politician.

Anyways, thanks for pointing out how much stuff we export. That makes more sense. On the other hand, China is exporting a heck of a lot as well, and their wealth is going up, and their consumption is going through the charts. They've got a new billionaire class running around in Rolls and Lambos. 

The "best" way to solve environmental problems is to get rid of most of the people. BUT, that's unethical, mean, rude,wrong, immoral, and goes against being human. So, we just try to solve the problems as best we can.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Don't you wish we could simply use environmentalists for compost? The Earth would rotate better.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> The "best" way to solve environmental problems is to get rid of most of the people. BUT, that's unethical, mean, rude,wrong, immoral, and goes against being human. So, we just try to solve the problems as best we can.


It doesn't have to be. Convince people not to have children. Start a medical charity that will provide free sterilization to anyone unable to pay. Something akin to "Doctors without borders" but for sterilization. 

Most of the people, in the first world, are not the problem, It is the 2nd and 3rd world that is currently producing the most new humans.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Don't you wish we could simply use environmentalists for compost? The Earth would rotate better.


No, but somebody seems to be full of a whole bunch of something. 



Farmerga said:


> It doesn't have to be. Convince people not to have children. Start a medical charity that will provide free sterilization to anyone unable to pay. Something akin to "Doctors without borders" but for sterilization.
> 
> Most of the people, in the first world, are not the problem, It is the 2nd and 3rd world that is currently producing the most new humans.


Yeah, absolutely. This is what the Gates Foundation tries to do. It's not really a problem in our country; we're pretty close to having a negative birth rate. Which should have our Chrustian friends worried. Muslims will outpace Christians by 2070. I'm not really worried - I consider both religions to be needless fantasies. But, to each their own, I don't really care either way. 

The next problem is that all the conservatives cry that the Gates are involved in a global sterilization and depopulation experiment, especially those fundies who belive a woman's only real purpose is as human chattel.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> No, but somebody seems to be full of a whole bunch of something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really should try to have half a clue about Christianity before you start adopting slang words you know nothing about. I am assuming the word "fundie" referrs ro Christian fundimentalists, which is a popular theme from folks who do not know the difference.

The chief adversary of abortion amongst churches in the US is the Roman Catholic Church, and thinking that they are fundimentaists is downright wacky, or that the women are "chattel". If you think that most Roman Catholic men are delighted when the wife anounces that she is pregnant for the 11th time, you are mistaken. Oh, they get used to the idea about the 8th month and are happy about it by the time the kid is born, but it is the woman in most cases who is always ready to have another one.

If you want to pass comment on Christianity, try to educate yourself a bit first, so you don't look so ignorant. Get to know a few Catholic wives and tell THEM they are chattel, but you'd prob'ly better do it over the phone. AND, those denomonations which are fundamentalists DEFINE themselves as such, so if you want to know who is who, look someplace other than the pro-abortion sites...Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> You really should try to have half a clue about Christianity before you start adopting slang words you know nothing about. I am assuming the word "fundie" referrs ro Christian fundimentalists, which is a popular theme from folks who do not know the difference.
> 
> The chief adversary of abortion amongst churches in the US is the Roman Catholic Church, and thinking that they are fundimentaists is downright wacky, or that the women are "chattel". If you think that most Roman Catholic men are delighted when the wife anounces that she is pregnant for the 11th time, you are mistaken. Oh, they get used to the idea about the 8th month and are happy about it by the time the kid is born, but it is the woman in most cases who is always ready to have another one.
> 
> If you want to pass comment on Christianity, try to educate yourself a bit first, so you don't look so ignorant. Get to know a few Catholic wives and tell THEM they are chattel, but you'd prob'ly better do it over the phone. AND, those denomonations which are fundamentalists DEFINE themselves as such, so if you want to know who is who, look someplace other than the pro-abortion sites...Joe


See my post in the other topic. Also, I've been a Christian most of my life. Grew up with it. maybe it's just a "phase!" 

I'm speaking from experience. I know lot's of people who genuinely, actually believe womens only responsibility in life is to be a good housewife, stay at home and raise the kids. You know what, great! It's a great way to raise the kids. But don't guilt trip the women into believing they are heels for wanting to have a job outside the family if they want to.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

The thread title is proven by the thread. Ironic ain't it?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> The thread title is proven by the thread. Ironic ain't it?


You ruitinely fail to offer posts with substance.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

bjba said:


> The thread title is proven by the thread. Ironic ain't it?


Further, both sides believe you are talking about the other side.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> You ruitinely fail to offer posts with substance.


 When you do I will. Offer posts of substance that is.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Further, both sides believe you are talking about the other side.


Ain't that a hoot. Because I am.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> When you do I will. Offer posts of substance that is.


I have before. Anything requiring more than basic comprehension seems to go over your head.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I have before. Anything requiring more than basic comprehension seems to go over your head.


Another post another insult from you. Your agenda, intolerance and juvenile practices preclude any substantive discussion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Another post another insult from you. Your agenda, intolerance and juvenile practices preclude any substantive discussion.


Give me any (sane) topic and I'll give you two full paragraphs in at least grade-10 writing on the Readability scale.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. Your past performance indicates a close mindedness that renders any attempted discussion with you an exercise in futility. Demonstrate your ability don't make claims.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. Your past performance indicates a close mindedness that renders any attempted discussion with you an exercise in futility. Demonstrate your ability don't make claims.


Well, at least I'm off the hook now.  It's on you now - I gave you a chance.:croc:


----------

