Poverty rate is highest in 15 years, says professor

Mar 07, 2013
Poverty rate is highest in 15 years, says U-M professor

The Great Recession leaves behind the largest number of long-term unemployed people, or 4.7 million, since records were first kept in 1948, according to research from the University of Michigan.

"About 46 million Americans, according to our latest count, are poor. That means for a family of four, they're living on less than $23,000 a year," said Kristin Seefeldt, assistant professor at the U-M School of Social Work and affiliated with the Ford School of Public Policy. "This is the highest rate of poverty that we've had in about 15 years."

Seefeldt's research with John Graham of Indiana University focused on the for the poor and how it performed during the .

Some programs worked, such as federal food programs and Medicaid, while federal cash assistance for the nondisabled poor and federal housing programs did not respond much to the burgeoning numbers of families in need of help.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

for programs that service the poor declined abruptly during the recession and have not yet recovered. Fiscal pressures on government may lead to cutbacks in programs that assist the poor.

"Low-income Americans may prove to be more vulnerable during the slow recovery from the Great Recession than they were at lowest point of the downturn," Seefeldt said.

Seefeldt and Graham suggest several fixes in the book including a modernization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Unemployment Insurance programs and the creation of an automatic link between the size of block grants to states and trends in the .

"More than anything else, what is needed is a rapidly growing economy," Seefeldt said. "A more robust recovery will help the poor, stimulating philanthropic giving and reducing the temptations of politicians to cut spending for the safety net."

The research was spurred by a request from PBS radio host Tavis Smiley. It has recently been expanded and published as a book titled "America's and the Great Recession."

Explore further: Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Poor women and welfare reform: working without a net

Aug 20, 2011

Welfare and Unemployment Insurance, considered important parts of Americans' safety net during difficult financial times, have provided little to no help for many low-wage earners who have the shortest distance to fall. Poor ...

Recommended for you

Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

Aug 29, 2014

One wish many workers may have this Labor Day is for more control and predictability of their work schedules. A new report finds that unpredictability is widespread in many workers' schedules—one reason ...

Girls got game

Aug 29, 2014

Debi Taylor has worked in everything from construction development to IT, and is well and truly socialised into male-dominated workplaces. So when she found herself the only female in her game development ...

Computer games give a boost to English

Aug 28, 2014

If you want to make a mark in the world of computer games you had better have a good English vocabulary. It has now also been scientifically proven that someone who is good at computer games has a larger ...

Saddam Hussein—a sincere dictator?

Aug 28, 2014

Are political speeches manipulative and strategic? They could be – when politicians say one thing in public, and privately believe something else, political scientists say. Saddam Hussein's legacy of recording private discussions ...

User comments : 146

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (17) Mar 07, 2013
Conservative Borrow and Spend economics coupled with Corporate offshoring of jobs are the gifts that keep on giving.

The solution is obvious. More tax breaks for the rich, and more financial burden for the middle class.
kochevnik
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
Stock market is high because corporation abandoned USA and profits are soaring abroad. Bond market is going down the toilet. Wait until the world drops the US dollar in 2016
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
Nutello still hasn't figured out that Martini and Rossi are frauds and that their E-Cat has become a source of laughter at the idiocy of cold fusion fanbouys.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (24) Mar 07, 2013
The 'liberal's' Poverty War creates more poverty. And that is their intention.
Liberal's need poor victim to stay in power.
How prosperous is Venezuela after Hugo, Cuba after Castro? The 'liberals' prospered, some very well, but the people do not.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2013
It is hard not to Laugh when a ConservaTard starts a post with a sentence that contains two lies.

"The 'liberal's' Poverty War creates more poverty. And that is their intention." - RyggTard

How does RyggTard manage to feed itself?

It is a serious question. Does it actually know what a spoon is?
Can it muster enough brain power to open a can of soup?

Is someone feeding it, and keeping it alive?

For what purpose?
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 07, 2013
RyggTard seems unaware of the fact that Chavez came to power in 1999

After his election, the GDP of Venuseula began to rise to unprecedented levels as the following graphic nicely shows.

https://www.googl...la%20gdp

Since his illness GPD has fallen.

Well done Hugo. I salute you. Your people love what you have done for them.

As they should.

You were right Hogo. America is the Whore of Satan and George Bush was a "Filthy, Ignorant, Murderous, Jackass".
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
Liberal's need poor victim to stay in power.
And conservatives do as well, to show what happens if you choose not to participate.

"This is the highest rate of poverty that we've had in about 15 years."

-And the cause is obvious.

"All signs suggest that technology is becoming an ever bigger driver of inequality as smarter machines emerge that can do a wider range of jobs -- eliminating the livelihoods of professional and working class Americans alike while generating higher profits for corporations."

-Revenue is flowing into the pockets of those able to take advantage of tech which is replacing workers at higher rates than ever before.

Rich people like ryggy need to be forced to put that lost revenue back into the system in order to maintain the infrastructure, and to support those who will never work again.

I suggest new deal-type work projects like for instance dismantling the dams built during the great depression.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (23) Mar 07, 2013
Redistribution of wealth impoverishes all by killing incentives for the poor to work and for the entrepreneur to invest.
Socialism only empowers the state.
How,a and why, did the 'man of the people' Hugo, amass a $2 BILLION?
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 07, 2013
I agree with RyggTard. In order for the rich to remain rich, the poor must starve in the streets where they belong.

"Redistribution of wealth impoverishes all by killing incentives for the poor to work and for the entrepreneur to invest." - RyggTard

And of course if someone comes along and takes RyggTard's wealth then he should starve in the street too.

I think it best if RyggTard be drained of his wealth reasonably slowly, say over 5 years, so that he may whine and complain as long as possible about his loss of freedom to legally steal from others.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2013
Yet the quality of life for the people of Venusualia improved greatly under Hugo's rule.

"Socialism only empowers the state." - RyggTard

That is why they love him.

"How,a and why, did the 'man of the people' Hugo, amass a $2 BILLION?" - RyggTard

We have no evidence that he did. All we have are reports from Faux news and other Conservative media outlets that are known to be non-stop streams of lies.

What evidence do you have RyggTard? Real evidence.

Do you have any?
freethinking
2.9 / 5 (17) Mar 07, 2013
6 years of the Democrats controlling the government and poverty is at an all time high. Why is anyone suprised? Progressives love poor people so much, they want more to be poor so they do everything in thier power to make more poor.

Just heard today that a small business that is a supplier to me is going out of business. Why? He couldn't keep running a business while complying with all the useless regulations and the paperwork that goes with them. OK progressives, now we have another poor person, another company out of business.

Now, can any progressive explain and defend, why facebook gets tax breaks, yet small businesses get saddled with higher taxes, more regulations?
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
"All signs suggest that technology is becoming an ever bigger driver of inequality as smarter machines emerge that can do a wider range of jobs


That and land prices.

Oh yeah, the fact your cable or satellite company dumps the majority of their proceedings to pay professional atheletes. Like I said elsewhere today, the millionaire atheletes and actresses get their cut from you either way, either directly, or from endorsements from products, and like the top 3 brands all have millionaire endorsement contracts with atheletes and actors.

So basically the wealthy get their cut, even for irrelevant reasons, often without you even having a choice. The products would be cheaper if they had no endorsements. And I don't even watch pro sports most of the time, but we pay full price for it anyway. It makes no sense at all.

The people who have money give it all to the idols, who then blow it all on drugs and mansions.
djr
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2013
Freethinking "He couldn't keep running a business while complying with all the useless regulations and the paperwork that goes with them. OK progressives, now we have another poor person, another company out of business"

I totally agree that regulations are strangling the life blood of American business. I am not sure how you assert that is solely the responsibility of progressives. Did regulations go down under Republican controlled congresses? I have been reading many articles recently about the cost of solar power in Germany (cheap) - vs. the U.S (crazy expenseve). The issue is primarily the over regulation of the U.S. market (we can buy the exact same panels as the Germans - for the same cost). The fossil fuel industry has a strangle hold on the U.S. energy market - and is making it as hard as possible to develop aleternatives. The Koch brothers and other right wing groups are funding these efforts at killing creativity. How is this the fault of 'progressives'?
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
Then they pay game show hosts and sit com stars 750,000 per episode, and they put celebrities and millionaires on "millionaire" as contestants nearly as often as normal people. It's like the entire thing was a pyramid scheme to funnel money from the viewers, to the network, and into the hands of people who already had money.

Anyway, between issues like this stupidity, and technology replacing the need for human beings for jobs, archaic civilization will collapse.

I don't know what's going to immerge out of it, but I have a hunch the very wealthy will be able to hire armies of guards to protect themselves, and they'll just operate the factories they own through robotics, and there won't be jobs. The have-nots will just starve in the street. That will likely make many Republicans happy.

BTW, the unemployment rate is actually much higher than what's reported. They just don't report all the other people who are realists and gave up looking.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
Lurker: "civilization will collapse." I share your analysis of the insanity of many aspects of our current system - but I do not share your pessimism overall. Ideological factors such as religion, and political extremism are putting a drag on the species (take a look at the Islamic world). Education innevitably leads to shedding of these ideological positions. There is much happening in poorer countries around the world - I think leading to a leveling of the playing field - and eventually leaving behind the destructive forces or ideology. I think we are in the process of democratizing our economics (look at solar panels, 3D printing, local food movement etc.) We could be going faster - but look at the idealogues who constantly appear on this board - and want to suppress progress.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (19) Mar 07, 2013
Then they pay game show hosts and sit com stars 750,000 per episode,

So? Don't watch. If no one watched, they would not get paid.
the unemployment rate is actually much higher than what's reported.

Thanks to a socialist media that supports 'liberals'. When unemployment rose above 5% while Bush was president, the press howled the economy was collapsing.
I am not sure how you assert that is solely the responsibility of progressives.

Because it was the Progressives that created the FDA over 100 years ago and began the Regulatory State.
"large corporate meat packers had been lobbying for federal inspection mandates decades prior to Sinclair's novel."
http://www.libert...-jungle/
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (17) Mar 07, 2013
We could be going faster - but look at the idealogues who constantly appear on this board - and want to suppress progress.


Then you support the end of the Regulatory State and lower tax rates and the resultant increase in economic opportunities such liberty would unleash.
This would be real progress.
arq
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2013

The problem is not ideologies.....the problem is too many people. The supply of people is outstripping the supply of jobs.
arq
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2013
While tens of millions of jobs are created every year worldwide, hundreds of millions of people are entering the work force every year worldwide.
arq
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2013
Energy and raw material sources depletion will lead to job loss in agriculture and manufacturing, and also leads to increase prices of those. These two factors increase poverty.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
Energy and raw material sources depletion will lead to job loss in agriculture and manufacturing, and also leads to increase prices of those. These two factors increase poverty.

What depletion?
The problem is not ideologies.....the problem is too many people. The supply of people is outstripping the supply of jobs.

It is the socialist ideology that is destroying jobs.
So it IS the idea that some master mind, central planner can control the world that destroys economies.
Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Haiti, DPRK, USA, Greece,... the list goes on
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
While tens of millions of jobs are created every year worldwide, hundreds of millions of people are entering the work force every year worldwide.
The inevitable problem of economic investment - it starts the inevitable economic cycle. Investment creates work which supports population growth which always proceeds faster than the ability to accomodate it. Commodities become scarce, inflation sets in, and a labor glut causes wages to drop. Instability and collapse ensue.

Ryggy always fails to account for population growth. It drowns capitalism by encouraging corruption and worker abuse. This is why it is inherently unstable and will always collapse without artificial Support. Management from behind the scenes. Both sides on the same Side.

If corruption is inevitable then it must be the Purpose of the Construct. Greed is very dependable and predictable, which makes it a useful Tool.

'Never trust an honest politician.' -Lazarus Long
freethinking
2.8 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2013
It is government that is strangling employment and destroying small business, not business costs such as materials or labor.

My company was audited last year by two agencies. Both costing me over two hundred man hours to prepare for and complete. It cost the government twice that much in man hours.

What did they find, nothing! It's so crazy that a question we asked the auditor took him 4 weeks to research.

The sole cause of high unemployment today is Progressives and their regulation loving government.

Want to reduce unemployment? Get government out of the way. Treat small businesses the same as big businesses. Quite having government trying to pick winners and loosers. Let big buisnesses fail (no business is too big to fail). A big buisness that fails INCREASES employment as small businesses rush into the vaccum.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2013
Ryggy always fails to account for population growth. It drowns capitalism by encouraging corruption and worker abuse.


Population growth is GOOD for real capitalism.

Corruption and worker abuse is enabled,encourage and supported by government regulations that restrict competition.

Who is enabling Chinese prisoners to work in their factories? A corrupt, socialist (I know, that's redundant) govt.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2013
Ryggy always fails to account for population growth.


Data shows that economically prosperous societies have lower fertility rates.
So why are socialists like Auto and Ehrlich, who are so afraid of people, socialists opposed to economic growth and prosperity?
It can't be rational. It can only be an irrational desire for power.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
Population growth is GOOD for real capitalism.
Correction: it is essential. As are new markets. But overgrowth is not. It is only within the last few generations that the west has been able to establish sustainable growth, depending in large part on family planning and ABORTION to the tune of 1 BILLION worldwide.
Data shows that economically prosperous societies have lower fertility rates.
Only recently. Prosperity has ALWAYS resulted in overgrowth and resulting decay and collapse. No matter what the political system. The remedy has always been war.

I cite germany, russia, and japan at the end of the 19th century.
It can only be an irrational desire for power.
Power requires lots of people doesnt it? Unless you have drones.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
Correction: it is essential. As are new markets.

No, it's not.
Prosperity has ALWAYS resulted in overgrowth and resulting decay and collapse.

Only when the govt intervened.
Before the Great Depression, world economies were growing then govts started restricting markets and trade killing off the prosperity.
Bernake acknowledge the role of the Federal Reserve in causing the Great Depression.
Govts economic punishment of Germany motivated WWII.

Why do socialists hate people, but claim to be their side?
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
I cite germany, russia, and japan at the end of the 19th century.

All socialist states.
Power requires lots of people doesnt it? Unless you have drones.

It only requires fear, as DPRK and other socialist tyrannies demonstrate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
No, it's not.
Yes it is.

"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." — Kenneth Boulding, economist
http://endofcapit...italism/

-Without growth and new markets, capitalism succumbs to efforts to limit competition, including collusion and corruption.
Only when the govt intervened.
Govts do not cause overpopulation. Only they have the tools to address it.
Bernake acknowledge the role of the Federal Reserve in causing the Great Depression.
Bernanke is a Player and says what he is supposed to say. The great depression was the inevitable result of industrialization in the context of obsolete cultures which allowed overgrowth and collapse.

In that context the only Solution was war. It is no coincidence that the greatest wars occurred in conjunction with this collapse. They are Engineered to work in conjunction with each other.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2013
All socialist states.
All with vigorous capitalist economies in the 1800s which led to collapse, revolution, and the rise of totalitarian regimes. Westernization in the context of traditional expansionist RELIGION-dominated cultures CAUSED this.

The reciprocal of market growth:

"The U.S. unemployment rate is down, but that is because many Americans have given up looking for a job.

Why Is The White House Playing Down A Strong Jobs Report? Agustino Fontevecchia Forbes Staff

"Dean Baker, an economist with the Center for Economic Policy Research in Washington, said Friday that the decline in U.S. labor force participation in this recent data release was "striking."

"The unemployment rate has dropped more than 40% of the way back to its pre-recession level, but the employment-to-population ratio is closer to its trough than its pre-recession peak. In English: less Americans are looking for employment."

-Like the poor lady in the picture above. Similar to berlin in 1923.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
All socialist states.
All with vigorous capitalist economies in the 1800s which led to collapse, revolution, and the rise of totalitarian regimes. Westernization in the context of traditional expansionist RELIGION-dominated cultures CAUSED this.

Bismark's Germany was socialist.
Russia under the czars were socialist. The state controlled the peasants.
Japan was another imperial/socialist power.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
-Without growth and new markets, capitalism succumbs to efforts to limit competition, including collusion and corruption.


Yes, socialism, aka collusion and corruption.

But it's NOT caused by lack of growth and/or new markets.

Don't you think there is a market for a hovering skateboard or a hotel in orbit or on the moon or ...?
New markets are only limited by the imagination as human needs and wants are UNLIMITED.
It is only limited by the socialist/totalitarian/tribal mind that fears growth, individual liberty and people.
the decline in U.S. labor force participation in this recent data release was "striking."

Thanks to the present socialist regime.
Similar to berlin in 1923.

The result of a socialist war and economic punishment of Germany by France and Britain.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
"About $1 trillion of oil revenues have been squandered in an attempt to build what Chavez called '21st-century Socialism'. This regime has so much oil wealth it does not have to account for how it is spent.

Yet, there are chronic food shortages and the infrastructure is crumbling, with collapsing bridges and potholed roads. Electricity supply is erratic.

Nationalisation of hundreds of companies — sometimes live on TV — has resulted in a thriving black market. The environment has been ruined by reckless industrialisation. Tens of thousands of Venezuelans have sought a better life abroad.

Read more: http://www.dailym...Mz3QCD6D
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2013
All socialist states.
All with vigorous capitalist economies in the 1800s which led to collapse, revolution, and the rise of totalitarian regimes. Westernization in the context of traditional expansionist RELIGION-dominated cultures CAUSED this.

Bismark's Germany was socialist.
Russia under the czars were socialist. The state controlled the peasants.
Japan was another imperial/socialist power.
Industrialization in all 3 countries in the 1800s was purely capitalist in nature. It grew wildly and without regulation, leading to the german and russian revolutions.

Capitalism and resulting growth CAUSED your socialist backlash. Japan avoided major disruption because it began to export excess workers in the form of armies, to china and the south pacific.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2013
Yes, socialism, aka collusion and corruption.
Socialism is the response to the collusion and corruption of stagnant capitalism at the stage in an economic cycle when population growth begins to outpace the resources needed to sustain it.

Your models fail to include this obvious factor. Always. The only way early western economies were able to survive for any length of time was by filling up empty countries, such as the US, or by exporting large percentages of their populations as colonists or military forces, such as rome or the british empire.

And you get way too humg up on words. Stalin, mao, castro, and chavez were/are dictators ruling martial law regimes for the purpose of controlling growth and destroying troublesome obsolete ancient cultures.

They have nothing in common with either the socialism envisioned by marx or the socialist governments of northern europe. They have everything in common with the religionist regimes of medieval europe and todays middle east.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
Socialism is the response to the collusion and corruption of stagnant capitalism

Capitalism can only stagnate because of corrupt socialist interference.
100 years ago in the USA this was called 'progressivism'.
Corporations colluded with govts to create a Regulatory State that would limit competition. Capitalism depends upon competition to thrive. It's call creative destruction-replace the buggy and buggy with an auto or replace kerosene for lighting with an electric lamp.
And you get way too humg up on words. Stalin, mao, castro, and chavez were/are dictators ruling martial law regimes


And they were no different than any other socialist that wants to plunder wealth.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2013
Conservative Borrow and Spend economics coupled with Corporate offshoring of jobs are the gifts that keep on giving. Vendicar_CommieFace


You're a complete fraud, and deliberately state the exact opposite of truth.

- No president in history has spent more than the progressive liberal Obama. He is already responsible for 1/3rd of the national debt, and is projected to double the dept by 2020. He does not even acknowledge a spending problem, and in fact wants even more taxes, to spend more. He is purposely devaluing the dollar as a back door means of redistribution of wealth,.... and he will bankrupt this nation.

-We are in a gobal market, do you not understand this?
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
CS Lewis
The 'progressive' considers himself the moral superior who exercises his tyranny for the good of his victims. Mayor Bloomberg, Nanny of NYC, comes to mind. He is no different than Hugo or Castro or lil Kim or Obama who want to control your life, which is YOUR property, and NOT theirs to own.
Auto, are you uncomfortable being associated with murderous socialists?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
The latest example of how corporations and govts collude exposed itself once again today.
Kraft Mac and Cheese uses a yellow food coloring some say causes cancer. The response from Kraft is the food coloring was approved by the FDA.
In free market system, competitors would promote their product does not have this ingredient and Kraft would have to follow suit or lose market share with no need for any govt interference.
This was why the FDA was supported by corporations, to limit their competitors.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (20) Mar 08, 2013
The fossil fuel industry has a strangle hold on the U.S. energy market - and is making it as hard as possible to develop aleternatives. The Koch brothers and other right wing groups are funding these efforts at killing creativity.


This is an absurd conspiracy theory, and is quite non-senssical. What difference does it make where their profit comes from? Investors will invest in whatever returns a profit. Why would one have such a predilection for a specific form of energy over another? You don't understand how the market works. Your suggestion above is an excuse for the failure of the green industry and otherwise doesn't make any rational sense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2013
Corporations colluded with govts to create a Regulatory State that would limit competition
-And so how do you prevent this but by regulation?
Capitalism depends upon competition to thrive
-But capitalists (humans) abhor competition. Obviously.
It's call creative destruction-replace the buggy and buggy with an auto or replace kerosene for lighting with an electric lamp
-Correct. And to achieve this sometimes you have to suspend competition for periods of time. And so you install socialism. You like quotes eh?

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme." Aristotle

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

"Everything is beautiful in its own Time." -god
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
This is an absurd conspiracy theory, and is quite non-senssical. What difference does it make where their profit comes from?
Are you implying that 'energy companies' own all possible forms of energy? That oil companies wouldnt lose profits if solar took away a significant portion?
Investors will invest in whatever returns a profit.
Again ?? Are you saying that oil industry lobbyists dont spend millions to influence govts to favor their industry over others?

Of course they do.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2013
Noumen: "Your suggestion above is an excuse for the failure of the green industry and otherwise doesn't make any rational sense."

How exactly has the green industry failed? I only have a second - so can't give you too many links - but the solar and wind industries have been enjoying some record levels of growth - and it is early days. You and I must live on different planets.

http://www.pv-mag...MzcmvlR6
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2013
Good if that's true. I'm all for clean energy if it can compete with and defeat coal/oil.

This is an absurd conspiracy theory, and is quite non-senssical. What difference does it make where their profit comes from?
Are you implying that 'energy companies' own all possible forms of energy? That oil companies wouldnt lose profits if solar took away a significant portion?


- Yes, they ARE generalized "Energy Companies", and as such WILL invest where the greatest potential for return on investment is, whether it is green or black, makes little difference. Profit is profit.

- Where and why would I suggest that "oil companies wouldnt lose profits [to] solar [assuming solar (etc) became adopted on mass scale]"? Of course the Energy Companies would make up for that lose by in turn investing in solar, and gradually transition away from their 'old fashioned oil' division.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2013
Noumen: "Your suggestion above is an excuse for the failure of the green industry and otherwise doesn't make any rational sense."

How exactly has the green industry failed? I only have a second - so can't give you too many links - but the solar and wind industries have been enjoying some record levels of growth - and it is early days. You and I must live on different planets.

http://www.pv-mag...MzcmvlR6


I offered a possible reason for making the absurd conspiracy statement. If I was wrong, ok, then why make the statement? If alternative energy took off enmass, do you think the evil Kock brothers would sit in a huff and not invest? It's about making a profit,... if cars ran on duck piss, they would be raising ducks.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
And so how do you prevent this but by regulation?

Easy, NO regulation.
But capitalists (humans) abhor competition.

Socialist do.
Most enjoy competition on a ball field, in the classroom. Most even enjoy just watching competition like the Olympics, Super Bowl, American Idol, World Cup,.....
And to achieve this sometimes you have to suspend competition for periods of time.

Edison developed the electric lamp without suspension of competition.
Churchill also said socialism was the equal sharing of misery.
And Jeffeson was correct about a pure democracy, as the French demonstrated after they murdered their aristocracy.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2013
It's called creative destruction-replace the buggy and buggy with an auto or replace kerosene for lighting with an electric lamp -
Correct. And to achieve this sometimes you have to suspend competition for periods of time. And so you install socialism.


Historically, when has a country (the USA) "suspended competition for periods of time and installed socialism"? Competition has never been purposely suspended to achieve progress. You just pulled that out of your ass.

I'm not sure the point of your quotes, but the USA is not a democracy such that decisions are voted on by the masses. It is a republic.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
How exactly has the green industry failed?

They can't EARN a profit.
but the solar and wind industries have been enjoying some record levels of growth

Only with taxpayer subsidies.
Rockefeller created an entire industry with innovation and strict attention to detail. First by refining oil most efficiently for kerosene and when the kerosene market began to decline, he found a use for a byproduct, gasoline.
Gasoline used to be sold in drugstores for the first autos.
Infrastructure for gasoline is so entrenched because of govt taxation and controls.
Many New England houses use fuel oil for heating. It is the same as diesel fuel without the tax. Color is added to vehicle diesel so people can't avoid the tax. And, there are govt officials who DO check fuel tanks.
Until the govt moves away from taxing gasoline and diesel, they have little incentive to innovate.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2013
Nouman: "Good if that's true. I'm all for clean energy if it can compete with and defeat coal/oil."

Your comments about 'free markets' make me think that you do not understand how complex the whole energy world is. For example - China is pissing off many in the world - by subsidizing their solar industry - and making it very hard for other countries to compete. China has 100 GW of wind power in their pipeline - but of course there is a lot of government interfence in there. Teasing out the true cost of power for any fuel is very difficult - as there are subsidies, and tax breaks, and taxes, all over the place. Were you aware that the U.S. governement spent heavily on the development of fracking technology? I actually believe that wind and solar are now at grid parity. Here is an article on coal subsidies - with links to several more articles on the whole issue - http://cleantechn...bsidies/

ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
U.S. governement spent heavily on the development of fracking technology?

Do you know how much the govt collects in taxes on oil?

djr
5 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2013
"Do you know how much the govt collects in taxes on oil?" No I don't - do you? Please share the number with us...

cont.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
"In January of 1981, President Ronald Reagan inherited an economy every bit as awful as the one President Obama inherited in January of 2009. Before the Reagan Recovery hit, unemployment would peak at 10.8% in December of 1982 (Obama's high was only 10% in October of 2009). Unlike Obama, though, Reagan also had to deal with crippling inflation and interest rates. "
"Reagan's approach was to get government off the backs of the people. He slashed tax rates, cut regulations, and freed Americans to innovate. His wisest decision, though, was to increase the incentive to invest. "
"During this same time in the Reagan presidency (March of 1984 to February of 1985), Reaganomics created 3.34 million jobs, an average of 278k per month. "
http://www.breitb...o-Reagan
'Liberals' care more about power than people.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2013
cont. - the point I was making - and the one you would have understood if you had taken the time to read - is that the energy situation is highly complex - and teasing out the true cost of different energy sources is close to impossible. The bigger point being that talking about 'free markets' with reference to energy is totally naieve. Do you know how much the government spends on insptectors to ensure our energy systems are safe? I didn't think so. I believe that if the gloves were taken off - and solar was allowed to go up against fossil fuels - with no subsidies, and no taxes - that solar would be the cheaper option. We will never know that - due to the over regulated - government nightmare we have created in our world - and the special interst lobbies will make sure it stays that way. Talking about free markets is naieve.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
U.S. governement spent heavily on the development of fracking technology?

Do you know how much the govt collects in taxes on oil?



Billions.

http://taxfoundat...industry

Talking about free markets is naieve.

But you just said socialism has created the problem?
Oh, that's right your thoughts are always WAAAY too complex.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2013
'Liberals' care more about power than people'

Rygg- this is a discussion about energy - and the hidden costs of energy. You need to stop trying to hijack every conversation with your ideological crap. I am no longer interesrted in a protracted political discussion about Ronald Reagan vs Barach Obama. Please stop it. Yes - you are correct - the liberals are the scum of the earth - and only care about power. The Republicans are awesome - free markets solve all problems.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
and the hidden costs of energy

We will never know that - due to the over regulated - government nightmare we have created in our world


Which you acknowledge are caused by the state.
The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem.

So what you really want is for the state to start plundering wealth and give it to solar companies and any other business YOU think appropriate.

I have a colleague in Westford, MA who has an opportunity to put a leased solar panel on his hours. But he can ONLY lease it. He can not store the power on site and, he is concerned his neighbors would not appreciate an ugly solar panel on the street side of his house.
DruidDrudge
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
Bismark's Germany was socialist.

Bismarck had no liking for Socialism. So when after a period of reorganization the German Social Democratic Party obtained half a million votes in the Reichstag in 1877 Bismarck became alarmed. So in 1878 he began a campaign against the Social Democratic party with the express object of crushing the whole movement. A law against the Socialists went through the Reichstag. Offencing Socialist papers were suppressed, many clubs broken up and meetings stopped, and some of the leaders banished.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Billions.

And the government spends billions on roads - more than they raise on the gas taxes. The point remains - trying to tease out the true cost of energy systems is virtually impossible - and we have not talked about external costs.

http://daily.sigh...f-roads/

Now Rygg - stop hijacking my posts with you political ideology - I view you as an ideological bully - and don't wish to spend time answering the same shit over and over - yes the liberals are evil - and the replicans are awesome - now knock it off.
DruidDrudge
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
Russia under the czars was socialist

Until 1905 the Tsar's powers were unlimited. Russia had no constitution, no political party system to check the Tsar's power and a strong secret police which terrorized the people. As a result reformers were forced underground during the late 1800's.Russia under the czars was socialist
DruidDrudge
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
Japan was another imperial/socialist power.

Japan was a political syncretism of Japanese right-wing political ideologies, developed over a period of time from the Meiji Restoration. It is also sometimes also referred to as nationalism or Japanese fascism
DruidDrudge
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
Starting with Reagan, U.S. politicians have borrowed their way to power. The current debt can not be repaired. The U.S. imports more than it produces, except for weapons. Do you wonder why you are always at war? The only question left to ponder is when you default.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2013
the energy situation is highly complex - and teasing out the true cost of different energy sources is close to impossible. [...] Do you know how much the government spends on insptectors to ensure our energy systems are safe? I didn't think so. [...If] solar was allowed to go up against fossil fuels - with no subsidies, and no taxes - that solar would be the cheaper option. We will never know that - due to the over regulated - government nightmare we have created in our world - and the special interst lobbies will make sure it stays that way. -djr


You bring forth a valid point here, but, why is that the state of affairs now? Lets look back in history. The current energy form in use on a mass scale came about originally via pure capitalism. The remarkable economic growth and success of the USA (and the world), along with increased standards of living, stemmed from this fact, NOT the government. Modern economies are kept alive by oil running through its veins.....
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2013
,... in time and due to envisioned global poltical events, this necessitated that countries protect their economic interests. That is to say, their economic life blood (oil) became a matter of national security. You see, you have it backward. Oil is not in use on a mass scale BECAUSE of gov subsidies and lobbyists,.... it is protected because it is what economies have evolved from.

You can no more remove the veins of a man without killing him, than replace oil, with a non-free market evolved alternative, without collapsing the economy.

This is why it is not naive to bring up free-markets. Alternaives MUST compete and defeat oil/coal in the free-market, if they are to replace it. The free-market WILL be the arbiter of what energy form is in use in the future. I personally believe that as oil becomes more scarce its cost will increase,... at which time investment into alternatives will increase.

In other words, economies require a gradual transfusion, that only capitalism can provide.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
you are correct - the liberals are the scum of the earth - and only care about power. The Republicans are awesome - free markets solve all problems.


Finally.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
This is why it is not naive to bring up free-markets. Alternaives MUST compete and defeat oil/coal in the free-market, if they are to replace it.

But we have just established that there is no free market in energy. The 'market' is a complex, and unfathomable mix of government and private sector. Is the Russian oil industry a free market? Is it a free market when government is both spend vast quantities to promote one industry (see my example of fracking), at the same time as raising vast quantities through taxation - but then also building a road system - without which demand for oil would be cut? Yes of course it is naive to talk of free markets. And while I am not highly informed on the history of the oil industry - I believe this statement of yours is also naive - "The current energy form in use on a mass scale came about originally via pure capitalism." I believe the British gvt used a great deal of government power to launch the oil industry in the middle east. cont.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
cont. - So why all of a sudden must alternatives 'compete' with fossil fuels, when there is not a free market in fossil fuels - but a very complex system in which governments are heavily involved. Again - I believe that if the gloves were off - solar would be able to compete with fossils - and that is exactly the reason the Koch brothers are funding a huge campaign to handicap renewables - using state government legislation as one of their main tools (how free market is that?) http://ecowatch.o...-growth/
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2013
Japanese fascism

Fascism is socialism.
Until 1905 the Tsar's powers were unlimited

Socialism is state control of private property. How did the Czar's power differ from the Stalin?
Bismark introduced social welfare insurance. Socialism is a as socialism does.
kochevnik
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
Russia under the czars was socialist
Wrong. Russia under the czars was a monarchy
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
"Many economists say the uncertainties and costs created by ObamaCare and Dodd-Frankenstein are a major cause of the sluggish recovery.

Companies have put off hiring and investment in new plants and equipment to deal with regulations that now dwarf the New Deal in scope and complexity.

"They are uncertain about fiscal policy, not knowing what their taxes will be," Federal Reserve Gov. Richard Fisher last week said in a New York speech. "They are uncertain as to the ultimate effect on their cost structures of the seemingly endless expansion of health care and other mandates and regulations."
"And without normal growth, we'll stay stuck in the insanity of government by crisis."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...N38PIc7k
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2013
Russia under the czars was socialist
Wrong. Russia under the czars was a monarchy

Socialism is as socialism does.
The state still controlled private property.
"There is really no essential difference between the unlimited power of the democratic state and the unlimited power of the autocrat." Mises, Socialism
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2013
Alternatives MUST compete and defeat oil/coal in the free-market, if they are to replace it.
But we have just established that there is no free market in energy.


No, we established that the necessity of oil as the life-blood of the current (free choice) economy, is a historical result, and the resulting inertia to be over-come, including the effects you mention, must be so in accord with existing free market forces,.... in other words, alternatives must Really be more economically efficient and freely chosen by the masses, not just forced into place by pretending its cheaper and more practical.

The far left want to perform surgery upon the economy to remove its reliance on oil. They're not even qualified to balance a budget. I want economies to Evolve off of oil, naturally,... which is to say, via free choice because its really a Better technological choice. That is what I mean by "free market".
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
must Really be more economically efficient and freely chosen

And not restricted by govt regulations.
The movie "Chain Reaction" about bubble fusion, was certainly fiction but it does highlight a significant issue. Will govts allow disruptive (to the state) energy technologies to be developed?
States are now beginning to notice their fuel tax revenue is falling as autos consume less fuel. How will they replace that tax? Why should states support hybrids or electric cars if they lose revenue?
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Russia under the czars was socialist
Wrong. Russia under the czars was a monarchy
Socialism is as socialism does.
The state still controlled private property.
It's socialism for the ruling class. The same system which you advocate
djr
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
"But we have just established that there is no free market in energy.

No"

Yes! - How can people have a conversation - if they make up the definition of terms on the fly? Free market is a very specific term - and you used it - and then you want to change the meaning to suit your interest. Here is a quick reference for the term 'free market'. http://en.wikiped...e_market And there is no free market for energy. And the government, and other groups - including pro renewable energy groups such as AWA are all competing for control of this complex and contrived system. You will not address the primary issue I keep trying to establish. There is no free market - it is all contrived - and I believe that if the gloves were taken off - solar power would out compete fossil fuels - which is why the Koch brothers are using government regulations to maintain the control of the fossil fuel industry on the energy markets. Stop moving the goal posts.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
Only with taxpayer subsidies.
Rockefeller created an entire industry with innovation and strict attention to detail. First by refining oil most efficiently for kerosene and when the kerosene market began to decline, he found a use for a byproduct, gasoline.
Gasoline used to be sold in drugstores for the first autos.
-How industrious. But as we know the industry survived on subsidies ie sponsorship.
http://thehill.co...axpayers

-Because who in their right mind would have bought a car back then? Horses were cheap and they were everywhere. This is exactly how radical alternatives are sold.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
There is no free market - it is all contrived - and I believe that if the gloves were taken off - solar power would out compete fossil fuels -


Really? Then you support no subsidies for any energy source. Free markets for all.
Koch brothers are using government regulations to maintain the control of the fossil fuel industry on the energy markets


Enron lobbied for subsidies for their gas business and promoted Kyoto.
So dj does not support the Kyoto treaty.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2013
Russia under the czars was socialist
Wrong. Russia under the czars was a monarchy
Socialism is as socialism does.
The state still controlled private property.
It's socialism for the ruling class. The same system which you advocate

That's what socialism IS, ONLY for the ruling class.
Hugo Chavez profited quite well, Chinese govt officials live high as does lil Kim.
Under Obmama, govt employees are making more than most in the private sector.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Really? Then you support no subsidies for any energy source. Free markets for all.

Correct - now please buzz off - I consider you a fool and a liar - why do you not understand that I consider trying to have a conversation with you an idiotic waste of my time - leave me alone - and I will leave you alone....
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
There is no free market - it is all contrived - and I believe that if the gloves were taken off - solar power would out compete fossil fuels - which is why the Koch brothers are using government regulations to maintain the control of the fossil fuel industry on the energy markets.


Because there is no pure laissez faire market, does not invalidate the term "free market" wrt energy. Again we are NOT currently using oil Because it is protected or regulated into place,... it is protected because we are currently using it, ...because the present economy requires it to LIVE. The energy market WILL be the arbiter of alternatives, NOT tree-huggers. Again, the Koch brothers will invest in WHATEVER returns an investment!!!!!

"" the American people [...is ] focused on our economy, jobs and growth that if the message is somehow that we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that," - B.H. Obama
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2013
I believe that if the gloves were taken off....


But you CAN'T take the gloves off. The economy depends on a proven and workable energy source. You can't take the economy off of life-support to try your speculative experiment,.... that maybe could or possibly maybe might work, if...

Again, your conspiracy theory seems to require that the Koch brothers have some weird predilection for oil profits, and the exclusion of other forms of profit. In general if investors see potential in alternatives, THEY WILL INVEST in it. The profit is the same colour.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2013
Again we are NOT currently using oil Because it is protected or regulated into place,... it is protected because we are currently using it
It was protected and subsidized from the beginning, back when it had no chance of making a profit, because it was obviously important for the future.

It now enjoys an unfair advantage because of the vast infrastructure already in place. AND it is still being subsidized. Technologies important to the future must similarly be subsidized and sponsored.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
Again we are NOT currently using oil Because it is protected or regulated into place,... it is protected because we are currently using it
It was protected and subsidized from the beginning, back when it had no chance of making a profit, because it was obviously important for the future.


Factually incorrect. It was half a century before any meager subsidies from the gov started.

It now enjoys an unfair advantage because of the vast infrastructure already in place


Thats what I've been saying. Carbon based energy has a historical advantage. The economy as existing and our standard of living, would NOT have occurred except for cheap oil/gas. You have to start by accepting that as a basic fact of reality and circumstance. THEN, alternatives must compete amidst these realities.

To artificially drive carbon based fuel prices up, WILL tank economies. Alternatives are going to have to make economic sense to replace it.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2013
It is presently the case that economies require oil to function, while it is NOT the case that economies require solar or wind, etc, to function,... so your liberal notion of "fairness" is logically inapplicable.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Because there is no pure laissez faire market, does not invalidate the term "free market" wrt energy

Yes it does. There are no free markets - so stop bandying the term around - it is a hypothetical - we are talking real world. We have to be precise about the language we use - or we cannot talk to each other.

"Alternatives are going to have to make economic sense to replace it."

Alternatives do make sense on a level playing field - with the added advantage of not creating the smog of Beijing. Take a look at this article on costs - http://www.renewa...r-energy

The question comes around again and again - why do you practice a double standard - fossil fuels do not have to compete on a level playing field - but renewables do? We are transitioning to a new energy economy - http://www.renewa...n-energy
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
It is presently the case that economies require oil to function, while it is NOT the case that economies require solar or wind, etc, to function,

A number of countries around now obtain 20 - 30% of their power generation from renewables - so what is your point? Economies require energy to function - energy if fungible - your logic makes no sense to me. We are transitioning to a carbon free energy system as we type - governments are heavily involved in the decisions regarding that transition - again - on a level playing field - renewables can compete. Why do you only support competition when it suits your agenda?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
Really? Then you support no subsidies for any energy source. Free markets for all.

Correct - now please buzz off - I consider you a fool and a liar - why do you not understand that I consider trying to have a conversation with you an idiotic waste of my time - leave me alone - and I will leave you alone....

on a level playing field - renewables can compete.

But you seem quite ready to justify the use of govt plunder to subsidize YOUR favorite energy supply.
Why do you only support competition when it suits your agenda?

You support socialism when it suits YOUR agenda.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
If you look at oil market in 1911, it was being heavily regulated by state and federal govt: http://www.us-hig...1911.htm
In 1913, "Since 1913, when the first oil industry-specific loophole was created, the industry has been able to deduct many costs of drilling oil wells immediately, rather than capitalizing the expenses and deducting them over the life of the wells. "

Read more: http://thehill.co...N4GDb34W
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

By no coincidence, the was the beginning of the 'progressive' (socialist) era in the USA.

By the time of the 1911 decision regarding Standard Oil, its market share had been falling while competitors rose.
"in 1911, the year of the Supreme Court decision, Standard Oil had roughly 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf"
https://mises.org...dard-Oil
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
"But an electric power plant cannot just shut down or even slow down a turbine, be it nuclear or coal or gas powered, just because electricity use has dropped temporarily because the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Shutting down and restarting turbines (not speaking of hydroelectric turbines) is a long process that can extend into days or weeks, as there are tons of metal and formidable heat involved.

The upshot of the green energy drive is that people are happily expending dollars in return for self-aggrandizing science projects."
http://mises.org/...562.aspx

The real challenge for Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) is to decentralize power. The national grid power system must be allowed to be dismantled. (It is heavily regulated by the Feds.)
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
"Toshiba is working on reactors that would produce 10Mw and 50Mw, called 4S, for "supersafe, small, and simple." It will apply later this year for U.S. approval to test a unit in the village of Galena in central Alaska, says spokesman Keisuke Ohmori.

Galena has no connection to power lines and is closed to barge traffic for more than half the year while the Yukon River is frozen. To provide heat and electricity, the town has always relied on diesel fuel, which has risen in price by about 48 percent in the past 12 months.

The bottom line: Small nuclear reactors hold much promise. Overcoming opposition to get operating permits will be tough. "
http://www.busine...5312.htm

This solution eliminates the need for a national grid and coal/oil generators for 'green' power backup.
Decentralization is not the socialist's way.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
Per capita energy consumption in the USA in 2010 was ~13,000 kW.
https://www.googl...sumption
Solar incidence is ~1300 W/m2. For solar to meet these needs, 100 m2 is required IF conversion was 100% efficient AND energy was incident 24hrs/day. Conventional solar would roughly require >1000 m2 per person or 300,000,000,000 m2, roughly 550km x 550km.
Doesn't sound too bad, does it? Cover the state of NM or AZ or half of AZ and NM or 1/3 ea of AZ, NM and NV with solar panels to power the entire USA.
The challenge yet to be addressed is power at night and grid losses, and don't forget the environmental impact of shading so much land on the local flora and fauna.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
The question comes around again and again - why do you practice a double standard - fossil fuels do not have to compete on a level playing field - but renewables do?


I just told you above. Why should I discuss this with you if you don't read my posts?
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
I just told you above. Why should I discuss this with you if you don't read my posts?

You should not. You don't understand the response I made to your flawed logic. So you should not discuss with me - you are not intelligent enough to discuss with me. The logic is - renewables are energy - oil is energy - energy is fungible - our world will not implode if we shift our dependence from fossil fuels to renewable fuels - renewables can compete if the playing field is level, and we have the added benefit of not choking to death like they are currently doing in Beijing. But please do not discuss with me any more - you are not able to understand my posts.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
he logic is - renewables are energy - oil is energy - energy is fungible - our world will not implode if we shift our dependence from fossil fuels to renewable fuels - renewables can compete if the playing field is level,


The flaw in your logic is that oil, coal and nuclear materials are a store of energy.
Renewables hare NOT a store of energy and only convert one source of energy.
There can be NO 'level playing field'.
You also assume that the ONLY reason oil and coal are the world's primary source of energy is they are subsidized by some govt and IF ONLY govts plundered more wealth from taxpayers wind and solar would compete.
Apply your vast complex thinking skills on comparing the net energy from oil, gas and coal and what is the net energy needed to construct wind, solar, and storage.
No amount of socialism can ever 'level that playing field'.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
"When it comes to power, density is the key. Energy density. The reason that solar power, wind power, and ethanol are so expensive is that they are derived from very diffuse energy sources. It takes a lot of energy collectors such as solar cells, wind turbines, or corn stalks covering many square miles of land to produce the same amount of power that traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants can on just a few acres."
"As significant future energy sources these technologies are dead ends, which is why the government, and not the private sector, is funding them."
"With algae's vast potential, it is easy to understand why private industry is interested, and why no government subsidies are needed to encourage investment. "
http://www.master...-is-key/
Like oil, coal an NG, algae uses solar energy, photosynthesis, to store energy.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
As for solar in Germany:
"The burden on taxpayers and ratepayers really hurts in a sluggish economy. The renewable energy surcharge on German electricity bills now exceeds US 7¢/kWh, taking retail prices near US 20¢/kWh."
http://www.master...re-24387

ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2013
This is IT!

""Economics puts parameters on people's utopias."

Yes. That's exactly it. That's why the politicians hate economics. That's why the media are so… selective in which economists they call on to talk about policy.

That's why the economics departments in colleges are put down by the sociologists, philosophers, literature professors, and just about everyone else who has romantic longings for a coerced utopia."
http://www.master...re-20060
The reason why so many who claim to be intellectual refuse to acknowledge the real world and are socialists.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
our world will not implode if we shift our dependence from fossil fuels to renewable fuels

I never said the world would implode, in fact had you read my posts and gave them consideration, you would have noticed that I said I believe that will eventually occur. I said that if alternatives are Forced in and carbon based energy is Forced out, unnaturally, that is, irrespective of market forces, economies will collapse.

It is clear that the USA government is incompetent wrt even a basic budget,..... but I'm asked to trust them to pick the next energy source,.. in effect to engineer the foundation of the economy?! Only a mush headed liberal could think of that.

renewables can compete if the playing field is level


Whenever a liberal says "level the playing field", they mean pretend that Reality doesn't exist. If the economy floats on a bed of oil, you can't ignore that fact and "level the playing field". Any ad-hoc abrupt disturbance will tank it.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
The reason why so many who claim to be intellectual refuse to acknowledge the real world and are socialists


They're fundamentally disinterested. They invest intellectual effort only to the extent of appearances. Their standards end at "does it sound good, is it convincing, who can we blame?". They just want to bulldoze over hard realities and bury facts, to "level the playing field". Their utopia requires control of human behavior and loss of liberty, as the price of admission, which ends up defeating the purpose of a utopia. Liberals are intellectually irresponsible.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Whenever a liberal says "level the playing field", they mean pretend that Reality doesn't exist. Your generalization is childish. Your use of the label liberal shows you up for the fool that you are. Instead of being able to handle the difficult task of understanding a very complex situation - you regress to the 5 yr old tactic of labels. I do not consider myself a liberal - but my politics are not the issue here - why do you need to always revert to political nonsense - instead of discussing the issue? I do not advocate pretending reality does not exist - I am arguing for being honest about reality - which as I have repeatedly stated - and you are not capable of understanding - renewables can compete with fossils if allowed to go head to head - and are actually becoming the lower cost option (see my above link). When I say level playing field - I mean - you don't want government supporting renewables - then stop government supporting fossil fuels. That is a simple construct.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
"Liberals are intellectually irresponsible." Childish group think gibberish - which reflects what seems quite clearly to be your inability to comprehend a complex world - so you withdraw into a world of simple labels - it is understandable - very comforting for the sheep of the world.
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
Utopia is illustrated in the picture.
She will never see this thread.
What a strange land and life.
She's your selling point.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
Govt plunder can NOT level playing fields that are as different as a baseball diamond and a hockey rink.
As noted, solar panels and windmills CONVERT energy. They have no intrinsic energy density and required significant energy resources (and cost) to fabricate, install, operate and maintain. Solar cells and windmills do not STORE the converted energy.
Fossil fuels have a high energy density and are stores of energy requiring only they be harvested and processed before giving up their energy.
Plant based fuels like ethanol and oils are on the same field as fossil fuels.
Solar panels and wind mills are the functional equivalent of chloroplasts.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
"Liberals are intellectually irresponsible." Childish group think gibberish - which reflects what seems quite clearly to be your inability to comprehend a complex world - so you withdraw into a world of simple labels - it is understandable - very comforting for the sheep of the world.

Irrational 'liberal' responses reveal the truth. Especially when they retreat into "it's too complex for you to understand".
I heard the Nobel physicist Eugene Winger state that if a researcher can't explain his research to a 6th grade student, the researcher doesn't understand his research.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
I am arguing for being honest about reality - which as I have repeatedly stated - and you are not capable of understanding - renewables can compete with fossils if allowed to go head to head


And that's the part where you continue to refuse to acknowledge reality..... "if allowed to go head to head" = meaningless gibberish,... because the two are in no way comparable. They can't go head to head, as I repeatably explained, oil is an Necessity for the economy while solar/wind are not a necessity for the economy, presently. You can't simply pull the rug out from underneath the economy by artificially creating a "level playing field" that doesn't ACTUALLY exist.

It's hard enough predicting economic recessions,... government failed even to predict the housing crash which they caused,... but they are to be entrusted to design and plan future energy source without tanking the economy?!! Gov can't even balance budgets and spend within the economies growth limits!
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
but they are to be entrusted to design and plan future energy source without tanking the economy?!!

I agree with you - but if you support continuing subsidies to the fossil fuel industries - that is exactly what you are proposing. My argument has been that if you are against government manipulating markets - then that is what you should be against - and what is sauce for the goose - is sauce for the gander - so you are arguing against yourself.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
""We spend a trillion dollars each year on federal poverty programs. That's more than the budget for Social Security or Defense," he said. "But poverty seems only to increase."

Read more: http://dailycalle...N5YTLrV1
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
but if you support continuing subsidies to the fossil fuel industries

Then end the taxes on the fossil fuel industries, too.
what is sauce for the goose - is sauce for the gander

Pkunk_
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2013
How industrious. But as we know the industry survived on subsidies ie sponsorship.
http://thehill.co...axpayers

-Because who in their right mind would have bought a car back then? Horses were cheap and they were everywhere. This is exactly how radical alternatives are sold.

Cars were so superior to Horses that it was inevitable for them to obselete the old animal based modes of transporation.
On the other hand "renewable" energy like Solar is still inferior to just combusting fuel for transportation. And the performance is still nonsense. Yeah cars like the Tesla are awesome but the problem is the battery storage they use still sucks price/performance/weight/range wise compared to fuel.
IMO , renewable will never be able to fulfill our ever expanding energy needs , and only something like Space Solar,Nuclear fission or fusion will give a permanent solution.
Windmills , heh.
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
Are you sovereign?
Are you free?*
*For Americans
What are you a slave of?
When are businesses no longer a business of yours?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
Cars were so superior to Horses that it was inevitable for them to obselete the old animal based modes of transporation.

"The manure piles attracted huge numbers of flies, and one journalist writing in Appleton Magazine in 1908, charged that each year 20,000 New Yorkers died from "maladies that fly in the dust, created mainly by horse manure.""
"The horses posed another sanitation problem when they dropped dead — sometimes from overwork, sometimes from disease (like horse distemper and other maladies that caused horses to swell overnight). In 1880, New York City removed 15,000 dead horses from its streets. But sometimes a big carcass would simply be left to rot until it had disintegrated enough for someone to pick up the pieces."
"What eventually helped the city with the problem?

The arrival of the automobile..."
http://cityroom.b...-hazard/
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2013
What subsidies for fossil fuels?
"Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check." – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources"
"the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax "subsidies" from the federal government, but frustrating because pretty much no one in the news media ever reports on the subject accurately."
"The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. "
http://www.forbes...big-oil/
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
"Energy-related loan guarantees arose from the stimulus legislation of 2009. Policy makers thought a huge infusion of low-cost loans would create many thousands of jobs at solar- panel factories, alternative-energy power plants and the like. There was an implicit assumption that most of these ventures would succeed. "
"Other giant loan guarantees have likewise been steered toward technology that turned out to be unsuccessful. Solar Millennium AG of Germany got $2.1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to build power plants that used sunlight and mirrors to create thermal energy. In August, Solar Millennium walked away from those guarantees, in favor of cheaper photovoltaic power. "
"The winner emerges through constant competition between different approaches and the workings of a free market as it allocates capital. "
http://www.bloomb...iew.html
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
Mixed Reactions to Moniz Nomination for Energy Secretary Moniz is just the person, which attempted to stop the cold fusion research for prof. Hagelstein at MIT (he was the only person, which was approved to this action this time). With respect to importance of cold fusion for sovereignty of USA (in connection to replacement of oil import from antidemocratic countries) he should be interrogated with FBI as the public enemy of the USA rather than nominated as energy secretary.

This is about the saying, "a fish rots from the head down", but everyone of you can urge your local politicians, for to promote the new technologies, like the magnetic motors.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
"Companies that make those panels are now struggling to survive. Even the world's largest solar panel maker, China's Suntech Power Holdings Inc, warned on Friday that it may be delisted by the New York Stock Exchange because its share price, which reached $90 in 2008, is now less than $1. Debt-heavy Suntech has also been hurt since it said in July that its partner in a solar development fund might have defrauded it with a bogus collateral pledge of hundreds of millions of German bonds."
http://www.csmoni...age%29/2
One interesting comment in the story is that solar power demand is low due to the weak economic growth, which is the result of the socialist's tax and spend policies around the world.
Tausch
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
...each year 20,000 New Yorkers died from "maladies that fly in the dust, created mainly by horse manure." - R2


http://www.chacha...ork-city

"About 55,400 people die each year in New York City, NY. This averages out to about 151 people per day that die."

Admonishing you makes no sense. I will call you a name instead.
Arsch.

ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
In 1908, the population of NYC was ~4,700,000.
The death rate in NYC in 1908 was ~16/1000 according to the US Census Bulletin 104 "Mortality Statistics: 1908".
Therefore, 4,700*16 = 75,200 people died in NYC in 1908, ~208 people per day. It was estimated that 20,000 of those 75,200 deaths were attributed to horse manure dust.
20,000/yr = ~54/day.
Of course no direct comparison can be made with today's death rates as so many who died in 1908 were from diseases and infections that are treatable.
But it is interesting that the 151 deaths/day in NYC NOW is about the same as 208-54 = 154 if the horse manure causes were subtracted.
Tausch
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
No improvement to the masses. No progress. Why are you here?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
No improvement to the masses. No progress. Why are you here?

No improvement?
The people living with horse manure dust didn't think so as gasoline automobiles replaced horses.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
The watermelons here seem to believe that the oil industry could not have been launched without govt subsidies so therefore to 'level the playing field' govts must subsidize solar and wind.
Automobiles quickly replaced horses and just one of the reasons was horse manure dust.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2013
Historically, when has a country (the USA) "suspended competition for periods of time and installed socialism"?
I didnt say the US did I? But subsidies are a suspension to a degree. An extreme example is nationalization. A less extreme example is the recent govt stock purchases.
Factually incorrect. It was half a century before any meager subsidies from the gov started
I am NEVER factually incorrect unless I want to be.

"The Congressional Research Service states the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil."

-This is also a 'suspension' of sorts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2013
Cars were so superior to Horses that it was inevitable for them to obselete the old animal based modes of transporation
NOT without paved roads, materials for manufacturing, fuel, and a public willing to buy into the creation of this vast infrastructure. The govt HAD to encourage them to do this.
Then end the taxes on the fossil fuel industries, too
Shouldnt they be paying their fair share?

"Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed the budget effect of repealing various oil and gas subsidies. They found that repealing the IDC deduction and percentage depletion for oil and gas would produce $9 billion and $12 billion, respectively, over 10 years. In fact, oil and gas industry subsidies are a great place for Congress to start as it searches for solutions to our fiscal problems."
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
But it is interesting that the 151 deaths/day in NYC NOW is about the same...R2


In a world where progress is made, where improvements better the lives of all, the death rate remains the same?
What have you provided? In the way of progress or improvement?
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2013
1916, " fledgling oil industry "?

By 1916, the oil industry was far from fledging.
"By the early 1860s, speculators were swarming northwest Pennsylvania, cluttering it with derricks, pipes, tanks, and barrels. "Good news for whales," concluded one newspaper. America had become hooked on kerosene.

Cleveland was a mere hundred miles from the oil region, and Rockefeller was fascinated with the prospects of refining oil into kerosene. He may have visited the region as early as 1862. By 1863 he was talking oil with Samuel Andrews, and two years later they built a refinery together. Two things about the oil industry, however, bothered Rockefeller right from the start: the appalling waste and the fluctuating prices."

Read more: http://www.fee.or...NANk27bo
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2013
Another reason why socialists hate Rockefeller:

" Rockefeller gave scores of millions of dollars to higher education. The University of Chicago alone got over $35,000,000. Black schools, Southern schools, and Baptist schools also reaped what Rockefeller had sown. His guide for giving was a variation of the Biblical principle—"If any would not work, neither should he eat." Those schools, cities, or scientists who weren't anxious to produce or improve didn't get Rockefeller money."
"Some historians haven't liked the way Rockefeller made his money, but few have quibbled with the way he spent it. Before he died, he had given away about $550,000,000, more than any other American before him had ever possessed"

Read more: http://www.fee.or...NAQi66Sy
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2013


1916, " fledgling oil industry "?
Youre playing dumb.

"The Ford Model T (colloquially known as the Tin Lizzie, T‑Model Ford, 'Model T Ford', or T) is an automobile that was produced by Henry Ford's Ford Motor Company from September 1908 to October 1927.[1] It is generally regarded as the first affordable automobile"

-Why dont you research the quantities of oil pumped before and after the auto industry began and subsidies were used to facilitate this?
Rockefeller gave scores of millions of dollars to higher education
Indeed, and to international efforts to reduce population growth through family planning and ABORTION.
http://www.rockar...iams.pdf
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
automobile that was produced by Henry Ford's Ford Motor Company from September 1908 to October 1927.

Gasoline was already a waste product of the kerosene industry.
Automobiles created a demand for an existing gasoline supply.
The oil industry was far from fledgling in 1908.
'Progressives' must want to believe nothing happened before their legislation made it so.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
"For years in the early refining era benzene and gasoline as refinery products had practically no market and were dumped by the few scattered pioneer refineries operating along Oil Creek and elsewhere in the oil region. "
"In 1906 an Atlantic dealer sold gasoline in his livery stable in downtown Titusville, Pennsylvania. This was one of the first dispensing "stations" in the northwest sector of the state. Others soon followed. In 1907 the Natural Gasoline Company began selling casing head gasoline to motorists at their terminal on the Allegheny River opposite Tidioute, Warren County."
http://www.petrol...bib.html
ValeriaT
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2013
zaxxon451
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
― Stephen Colbert
Tausch
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
That's it then. No one retire. Speaking for everyone.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
Automobiles created a demand for an existing gasoline supply.
The oil industry was far from fledgling in 1908.
'Progressives' must want to believe nothing happened before their legislation made it so.
Nothing happened with gasoline until cars began being built and subsidies made it cheap and available.
asoline as refinery products had practically no market and were dumped by the few scattered pioneer refineries operating along Oil Creek and elsewhere in the oil region. "
'Few scattered pioneer refineries'? After subsidies they began popping up all over didn't they? Exploratory drilling began all over didn't it? All financed in part by the govt because it wouldn't have happened otherwise.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
You will also note that related industries - road building, mining, transportation, steel, rubber, etc were govt-subsidized.
http://www.xconom...pective/

-This in addition to the great influx of foreign investment money. Obviously, people such as the rothschilds and US politicians were working in concert to jumpstart these industries which never would have happened by themselves.

The king says a new harbor will be dug or a new colony will be established, and the royal coffers are opened to make it so. This is how it has always been done. The Govt always initiates these major Initiatives. But not perhaps the govt that you may be familiar with.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (16) Mar 11, 2013
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to [..] serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
― S. Colbert


Colbert is a liberal thinker, which generally means, reasonable to the extent of immediate appearances, ....but not logically consistent if examined with any amount detail.

Charity through the government is not really Giving in the sense in which Jesus commanded. Forced charity via tax and spending, is NOT a personal sacrifice of free will, so it can't possibly have such a connotation a big-gov liberal like Colbert would like it to.

Liberals give more of Others people's money to charity (via gov), while conservatives give more of their Own money to charity.

The other thing is that "the poor" in the USA own flat-screen's TV's, computers, and cell-phones, Jesus wasn't speaking of them.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2013
... Gov can't even balance budgets and spend within the economies growth limits! ,...but they are to be entrusted to design and plan future energy source without tanking the economy?!!- Noumenon


I agree with you - but if you support continuing subsidies to the fossil fuel industries - that is exactly what you are proposing. - djr


Nope, ...because such support will taper off in proportion with the importance of the given energy source to the economy, naturally and gradually over time.

This must occur as a passive, natural response,... not in forcing, or "jump starting" an industry that has not proven itself. It is YOU who wish to engineer-in via government social engineering, the green industry. The government has not proven itself competent to accomplish that without tanking the economy. Natural economic evolution will eventually replace oil,.... it will require massive gov control over human behavior to accomplish "now".
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
Rockefeller didn't create a way to make kerosene cheaper to save the sperm whales. He did it to make a profit.
Creating a cheaper substitute for sperm whale oil enabled more people to light their homes, saved whales and started the destruction of the very profitable US whaling business.
In the 'progressives' Regulatory State, the very profitable whale oil industry could have lobbied very hard to shut down any better, cheaper substitute.
Fortunately, the Regulatory State was very weak in the mid 1800s.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
― Stephen Colbert

Why are 'liberal' atheists attacking religion?
Charity is GIVING, voluntarily.
Govt welfare is FORCIBLE redistribution of wealth which angers the ones being plundered and instead of creating a sense of gratitude for the plunder, it creates a sense of entitlement.
Like a typical govt program, welfare is a lose-lose for the people and a big win for the expansion of state power.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2013
This will work in the USA, too:
"And the most successful developing countries have also been more open to world markets, such as welcoming foreign investment. Since 1990, the share of global trade by the so-called "global south" group of developing countries has grown from a quarter to nearly half. Big countries – China, India, Brazil – have led the way.

While these steps of progress – from free-trade pacts to water wells, from roads to new seed varieties – have helped reduce poverty, the overriding effect seems to be an improvement in the poor's image of themselves as able to use the assets made available to them."
http://www.csmoni...-poverty
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2013
Why are Americans so poor? Well funneling a $trillion each year since 2008 into the pockets of the banksters didn't help: http://americablo...ren.html

Of course the zionist media presented this number as one magnitude smaller: 83 $billion. That is now permanently etched in the mind of the bleating sheep. Mission accomplished! The bankster's reply? "Fuck you very much"
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2013
"The reality is that greed is not overcome by law, but by generosity and this simple truth is what makes the attacks on generosity so disturbing. "
"A more insidious problem is that the church, and other religious and charitable organizations are the only real competition to the State. One of the first acts of dictators in the last century was to destroy the churches. This is because the church tells the people, "God is the ultimate authority," whereas the dictator says, "I am the ultimate authority." "
"he war on generosity must be exposed for what it is, a subjugation of the church to the State. As the allies of the State strive to perfect humanity they will not just breed more greed, but they will breed resentment too."
http://juicyecume...erosity/
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2013
Well funneling a $trillion each year since 2008 into the pockets of the banksters didn't help:

Yes, this is called socialism.

Tausch
3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2013
1984.
Newspreak.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2013
The money that I put in the bank now, it's not like that money is going to be waiting for me. That money is being lent to someone else, If I wanted my money 50 years from now, when I wanted to retire, I would have to hope that someone else is still working and paying interest on their loans from their paychecks to pay for bank withdrawals at that point.

"IMO it speaks for itself" - ValeriaT

From ValeriaT's link...

"The money that I put aside now, it's not like that money is going to be waiting for me. That money is going toward someone else," the recent college graduate said. "If I wanted Social Security 50 years from now, when I wanted to retire, I would have to hope that someone else is still working and putting money aside in their paychecks to pay for my Social Security at that point."

Perhaps he can explain the difference.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2013
Nope, it is called saving America from the natural results of Libertarian/Randite ideology.

"Yes, this is called socialism." - Ryggtard

Your ideology RyggTard. Randite disciple Greenspan even admitted that the banking crisis was a direct result of his application of your ideology to the real world.

http://www.youtub...nH_OTZio

RyggTard is incapable of learning.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2013
It didn't?

"Well funneling a $trillion each year since 2008 into the pockets of the banksters didn't help:" - Kochevnik

Due to the Stimulus, the U.S. did manage to avoid entering a 30 year long Grand Economic Depression.

Is your memory so short?
VendicarE
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2013
RyggTard is caught lying again...

"Charity is GIVING, voluntarily." - RyggTard

CHARITY - Definition

1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity

2a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need

2b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor

2c : public provision for the relief of the needy

3a : a gift for public benevolent purposes
3b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
VendicarE
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2013
No.. It is the price you pay for society.

"Govt welfare is FORCIBLE redistribution of wealth" - RyggTard

Don't want to pay for the goods and services you receive from society? Fine... Get out of the store.

Otherwise you are a low life thief. Just like any other shoplifter.