[QUOTE=Dccpa;440410]Reagan's mental facilities were going downhill in the later years. What is BO's excuse?[/QUOTE]Based on the drumming into my head, he is Black, Muslim, Communist and the most despicable, a Community Organizer.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Dccpa;440410]Reagan's mental facilities were going downhill in the later years. What is BO's excuse?[/QUOTE]Based on the drumming into my head, he is Black, Muslim, Communist and the most despicable, a Community Organizer.
Reagan's Mental facilities went down hill when he was Governor of California.
He must have been really nuts to close all the state mental hospitals and let all the nuts out on the streets.
And now there are more out there and In Congress tooooo.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;440410]Reagan's mental facilities were going downhill in the later years. What is BO's excuse?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;440422]He must have been really nuts to close all the state mental hospitals and let all the nuts out on the streets.[/QUOTE]I wondered how you got on the streets. Now I know.
Tres3.
We hear all the time we live in a global economy and have to compete against other nations. Many of our major corporations are multi-national with operations spread around the globe. So you would think in a "global economy" the US government would be doing its best to help American companies compete as well as attracting foreign company to the US, right?
Wrong!
The US has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world and certainly the highest in industrialized countries at 35%.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates[/URL]
This higher corporate tax rate is inducing more and more US companies to use a tactic called a corporate inversions, ie a transaction in which a USA -based multinational group restructures so that the USA Parent of the group is replaced by a foreign corporation, typically located in a low-tax country, to lower their tax rates to be more competitive in the global market. So what do our government officials and politicians do? Do they think globally and consider restructuring the tax system to lower corporate tax rate so US companies can compete more effectively here and abroad, no they start trying to finds ways to punish US corporations for moving to lower tax rate countries.
Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen says Congress needs to do something to stop corporations from moving overseas. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently sent a letter to congressional tax-writing committees to request legislation that prevents companies from leaving USA Tax bills behind, retroactive to May 2014.
So what's the problem here? Haven't these knuckleheads ever considered lowering the tax rate to keep US companies here and attract new business to the US? If the rate was lowered to something competitive, yep there's that ugly little word again liberals / progressives hate, with other industrialized nations how much of the cash held overseas by US companies would come flooding back? Perhaps if the Fed would raise interest rates to something reasonable instead of artificially keeping them low perhaps we might get a little investment money rolling in.
Well His Majesty is too busy fund raising, playing golf, shooting pool, swiging a beer, throwing parties at the White House and other such important issues to bother with Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza, shot down airlines, or the Ukraine to be annoyed by such small issues as the economy.
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0[/URL]
In today's politics, the moment you win an election, you are working on winning the next election. There is really no long term agenda possible, no matter how great your ideas are, because if you do not prioritize the next election, there is no way you can implement anything meaningful, forget about substance. First you have the formidable opposition funded by the Big Boys, who could bulldoze you underground. And then you have an electorate who cannot tolerate any short term deprivation, who cannot see beyond their next pay check. So what you have is what you get. We are ones who vote the morons to Washington, they are actually who we are. They are actually doing what we would be doing if we were there. Don't kid yourself into thinking that we are better than them. It's the system, the culture, brother, pure Americana, circa 2014. There will be a day of reckoning somewhere in the future. But for now, don't worry, be happy.
When I was at a mid-price resort in El Nido, about 7 chalets, we had power partially from solar energy. That is during the day when the sun is up. A sure way to save some money. Can American homes be helped in some way by this innovation? Yes, of course, but just beware of the Big Boys kicking some sand in your face.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440508][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0[/URL]
In today's politics, the moment you win an election, you are working on winning the next election.
There is really no long term agenda possible, no matter how great your ideas are, because if you do not prioritize the next election, there is no way you can implement anything meaningful, forget about substance. First you have the formidable opposition funded by the Big Boys, who could bulldoze you underground. And then you have an electorate who cannot tolerate any short term deprivation, who cannot see beyond their next pay check. So what you have is what you get. We are ones who vote the morons to Washington, they are actually who we are. They are actually doing what we would be doing if we were there. Don't kid yourself into thinking that we are better than them. It's the system, the culture, brother, pure Americana, circa 2014. There will be a day of reckoning somewhere in the future. But for now, don't worry, be happy.
When I was at a mid-price resort in El Nido, about 7 chalets, we had power partially from solar energy. That is during the day when the sun is up. A sure way to save some money. Can American homes be helped in some way by this innovation? Yes, of course, but just beware of the Big Boys kicking some sand in your face.[/QUOTE]Reverend, interesting points. Respectfully, I disagree. That takes my opinion of the New York Times down a couple of notches. I doubt Koch Industries cares about this issue, one way or the other. It doesn't affect them. More likely it's the electrical utilities driving the issue. Or there's something we don't understand. The bill did receive overwhelming bipartisan support in the Oklahoma legislature. The vote in the senate was 41-0, and it was 83-5 in the house.
Doing what the Times lauds, that is mandating that a particular percentage of electricity come from renewables and subsidizing them heavily, is not wise. Spain did that and it's one of the reasons the country is almost bankrupt. Actually what this represents is bulldozing by the Big Boys, as you put it. Only the Big Boys, like Solyndra and Vinod Khosla, are special interests who donate to the Democrat party. Every time government starts micromanaging the economy, with quotas and mandates, it screws things up. Like Jimmy Carter, who decimated the Natural Gas industry in the United States in the late 1970's because the USA was running out of gas. Ha! It turned out that natural gas has put the USA in a position where it may become self-sufficient overall in energy, while at the same time reducing carbon emissions by displacing coal.
If you believe that global warming is (a) real and (b) the costs to ameliorate the problem are worth it, then institute a carbon tax to reduce emissions, and use the revenues to lower the income tax or pay off the debt. But there's no chance of that. First the politicians will never support a tax that will piss off voters when they have an alternative plan that enables them to pass out special favors like quotas and subsidies, while at the same time shifting the blame to the electrical utilities for higher prices. And second there's no way they'd use a carbon tax to do something responsible, when they could instead waste the money on pork and boondoggles.
No surprise to see the free market capitalists on this board, yet again arguing to help the rich. Their common theme:
- Lower tax rates on millionaires and billionaires (much less than the 39.6% rate they [I]should[/I] be paying)
- Lower tax rates on corporations
The argument is that the rich will move their money elsewhere if we don't lower their taxes. That may be true to some extent, but lowering their taxes will only further increase their share of the economic pie and increase economic inequality, trends we need to reverse, not accelerate.
Of course, Wall Street loves these tax inversion (evasion) deals, because they reap huge transaction fees and improve corporate profitability, which positions the corporations to increase their payouts to Wall Street. Bankers are now actively pitching inversion targets to US corporations. Yep, the same folks and their greed that were most responsible for the financial crash and the Great Recession, now pursuing ever-new ways to make a buck, again at the expense of Americans. It's a great cycle for Wall Street: increase corporate profits -- increase corporate payouts -- increase the wealth of the top 1% -- accelerate by lowering tax rates for top 1%.
How Hedge Funds Are Pushing Companies To Leave America
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/05/01/how-hedge-funds-are-pushing-companies-to-leave-america/[/URL]
The answer is not to feed into this "race to the bottom" mentality where we suck up to the top 1%. The answer is to pass deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents or discourages more lopsided wealth accumulation, and where possible reverses it through redistribution. Legislation to increase the hurdle to inversion deals is worth looking at.
Doppelganger's solution: Reduce the federal corporate tax rate so that it's not the highest in the developed world. Remove subsidies and special privileges, and make the tax system simpler, more efficient, and easier to comply with. Overall, Doppelganger's solution would grow the economy and jobs and make things better for corporate stakeholders, which include their employees, state and local governments, and pension funds and mutual funds that own their stock. It would also help small incorporated businesses that don't have armies of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants.
Esten's solution: First and most importantly, blame it on the top 1%. This has served Obama well and is a good Democrat talking point for the elections this year. And redistribute. Take the capital and investment out of the economy and distribute it as free money. This gets even more votes for Democrats.
Second, otherwise leave everything as it is except outlaw mergers that involve USA Corporations and would result in the merged entity being domiciled outside the USA. Will this punish Wall Street? I doubt it. The investment bankers, lobbyists and tax lawyers will find other ways to milk their clients and further contort the tax system so that it's even more inefficient.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440509] I doubt Koch Industries cares about this issue, one way or the other. It doesn't affect them.[/QUOTE]I am by no means an expert on this subject, but Koch Brothers isn't funding the Liberterian Party because they want to solve America's problems.
[QUOTE=Esten;440512]The answer is to pass deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents or discourages more lopsided wealth accumulation, and where possible reverses it through redistribution.[/QUOTE]Any such legislation, no matter how "carefully structured", will have exactly the opposite effect.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440529]I am by no means an expert on this subject, but Koch Brothers isn't funding the Liberterian Party because they want to solve America's problems.[/QUOTE]Nobody funds anyone "[I]because they want to solve America's problems[/I]", period.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440529]I am by no means an expert on this subject, but Koch Brothers isn't funding the Liberterian Party because they want to solve America's problems.[/QUOTE]Reverend, I think you're right, that their Libertarian instincts would be the reason they're donors to organizations that want to limit renewable energy quotas and subsidies. There's not much of an economic incentive, as they're involved in transportation fuels and chemicals, which don't compete with renewables. Like you I'm not an expert on the Koch's and their donations.
The issue appears to be that people using solar and wind at times put power back into the electric power grid and receive credit for it. An example might be a sunny day when a homeowner's solar system is generating more electricity than he needs. From the L. A. Times article that your NYT piece links to, it doesn't make economic sense for people to install solar or wind equipment unless they'll get credit at attractive rates for the excess electricity they generate. The utilities own, maintain and operate the transmission system. Based on a 2 hour lecture I sat through by one of the "air traffic controllers" of the power grid, the issue isn't as one sided as you think. For example, in Texas, there are commercial wind generators that actually sometimes pay to put power into the grid. This occurs maybe on a windy day when heating or cooling demand is low and there's too much power being generated, so the grid actually makes prices negative to lower the supply. Logically the wind generators would shut down to avoid paying money to the grid and to avoid the wear and tear on their equipment. But because the federal government pays them something like a 2 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit, and because the grid was only charging maybe a cent a kilowatt hour to allow them to generate the power, they'll make an after-tax profit if they keep generating. I presume the same thing could happen on a sunny day in Arizona -- the utilities lose money while they're crediting homeowners for excess electric power generated from their solar panels.
So a question, since utilities own the transmission system, what's to prevent them telling homeowners they can't use it? And why wouldn't they, if they're going to have to incur costs and have lower revenues by subsidizing the homeowners? My guess, there may be anti-monopoly laws that prevent this, since there's only one utility providing the electric lines in your neighborhood. Anyway, what Arizona finally ended up with, a $5 per month fee or whatever to hook your solar cells into the grid, seems on the surface reasonable to me, in compensating the utilities for what they're providing. $100/ month does seem excessive for a homeowner. But since we don't know the costs involved we can't say.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440513]Esten's solution: First and most importantly, blame it on the top 1%. This has served Obama well and is a good Democrat talking point for the elections this year. And redistribute. Take the capital and investment out of the economy and distribute it as free money. This gets even more votes for Democrats. [/QUOTE]Tiny's mischaracterizations only indicate how weak his argument is. The progressive solution is not blame, but deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents, discourages or reverses lopsided wealth accumulation. If there is something to blame, it would not be the 1%, because many in the 1% actually understand the extent of economic inequality in this country, and support progressive efforts to address it. The blame instead would be on an inadequately regulated capitalist system, championed by free market capitalists like Tiny. Free-market trickle-down theory was largely disproven under Bush, and is only still espoused by self-interested beneficiaries, ideologues and suckers.
It's not about punishing Wall Street either, simply reigning them in. They won't do it themselves. And saying they "will find other ways to milk their clients" is a poor excuse for not taking any action. I am sure on the inside, many folks on Wall Street are laughing all the way to the bank at the extent to which they are able to leech off the economy and the fruits of American workers.
As Buffett said, [I]"Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning."[/I].
[QUOTE=Esten;440541]Tiny's mischaracterizations only indicate how weak his argument is. The progressive solution is not blame, but deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents, discourages or reverses lopsided wealth accumulation. If there is something to blame, it would not be the 1%, because many in the 1% actually understand the extent of economic inequality in this country, and support progressive efforts to address it. The blame instead would be on an inadequately regulated capitalist system, championed by free market capitalists like Tiny. Free-market trickle-down theory was largely disproven under Bush, and is only still espoused by self-interested beneficiaries, ideologues and suckers.
It's not about punishing Wall Street either, simply reigning them in. They won't do it themselves. And saying they "will find other ways to milk their clients" is a poor excuse for not taking any action. I am sure on the inside, many folks on Wall Street are laughing all the way to the bank at the extent to which they are able to leech off the economy and the fruits of American workers.
As Buffett said, [I]"Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning."[/I].[/QUOTE]
There is no point in attempting to debate Esten, he is too far gone.
Don B.
[QUOTE=Esten;440541] The progressive solution is not blame, but deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents, discourages or reverses lopsided wealth accumulation.[/QUOTE]Here's the progressive solution in more detail,
[URL]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf[/URL]