State of the Union

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I am interested in your explanation of hydrogen and its use as a fuel source.
What type of energy is consumed in the making of it.[/quote]

You can extract hydrogen from water by using electricity. The dillema becomes how you produce that electricity…

Honestly, we could be stop using oil altogether in as little as 10 years. Cars and trucks could run on Fuel Cells (Hydrogen), Biodiesel or Ethanol. Airplanes could run on Methanol. Power plants could run on Solar, Wind, Hydro or Nuclear.

The technology exists already. It depends on how much money we’re willing to invest in the conversion, and what sacrifices we’re willing to make…

Yes, I said invest. What people fail to realize is that it is an investment, not burning money. If American companies take the lead on alternative sources of energy, we will be making billions out of it for centuries to come, selling the optimized technologies and implementations to the rest of the world.

We did that pretty well with weapons… Are we so evil that we can’t do that with something constructive like energy sources?

42

[quote]Sasquatch wrote:
One question. If you hate double taxation–how does that fit in to you wanting to tax inheritance.
[/quote]
Would I not be mistaken to say that inheritance does not constitute a PRIMARY source of income as you indicated in your original post, save for a few cases in which the individual in question is contributing little if anything beyond their consumption to society or the economy.

43

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
Would I not be mistaken to say that inheritance does not constitute a PRIMARY source of income as you indicated in your original post, save for a few cases in which the individual in question is contributing little if anything beyond their consumption to society or the economy.[/quote]

That might in fact be the case in many situations too, yes, especially after paying off all the debt.

However, don’t underestimate the number of the “few” cases. I know a few people whose parents had life insurance policies that paid out millions… or that had huge houses that are worth also millions and were completely paid out several decades ago at fraction of their value now. These people sudenly became very wealthy the day their parents died. It would be quite unfair for them to receive such a downfall – tax-free for their parents, especially if property taxes are eliminated – without paying any tax themselves, especially considering they did little (or nothing) to earn it and they would not, again, pay any property tax on it.

(sorry to repeat myself, but the absence of property tax in this system is key, or it could, in fact, be considered a situation of double taxation)

44

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

This really is garbage Irish. It’s a tone like yours that prevents actual discussion and makes it all the easier to fall back on complete rhetoric.

Your answer to everything is strictly anti-Bush. What about the actual innitiative? Yes I know it was a political speech, but didn’t anything get your engine going. NO. Too busy hating to see any type of future until old W gets out of there.

I know you don’t believe this, but Bush being an oilman has nothing to do with it. True, innovation will cost money. This is the crux. But for everyone of you who bitches about Exxon profits, but does nothing about it you’re the biggest hypocrits.

Please show me where Bush wants to gut SS. Forget it. You’re not even thinking for yourself. From now on I’ll just call you Mr. Pelose(sp). Your tone is so negative, you don’t want to work towards any common goals or good, you’d rather bitch about your perception of W than carry on any meaningful conversation about what this country can and should do to move forward.

Get over it dude. Your angry young white boy stance makes you look juvenile. Every single ‘rebuttal’, for lack of a better word, was nothing but rehashed partisan garbage—the exact stuff I said let’s forget and see how we would better ourselves. I guess that was too much comprehension for one day.

Sorry for the blow up, but it just gets me how we can’t even get one post past the original before the same old,sameold just starts up again. Too bad. There sure is plenty to talk about.
[/quote]

I will stop saying the same thing when Bush stops giving the same fucking speech!

What do you want?

Yes, lets make social security private. Let’s take the system that has worked properly for 70 years and change everything, dumping money onto Wall Street. I don’t agree! I wouldn’t work together for the sake of “bipartisanship” when that means adhering to what the Republican definition of bipartisanship means. They wanted to ditch the fucking filibuster! Its a goddamn power grab! What the fuck do you want?

You want my idea? Get the fucking Republicans out of office. Vote them out. Until that happens, nothing will be accomplished. Bush has done nothing but divide, even amongst his own party occasionally. What do you want me to say?

That even after all his shit, his scandals on every level, his war, his bullshit tax cuts, his eavesdropping, his PATRIOT Act, that we can all make up and be friends? And now that he’s done all this, now we should all look for the greater good? Get the fuck out of here. Its unrealistic, and completely irrational to think that anything can be accomplished after the split he has caused between liberal and conservative.

His speech was the same rhetoric that he has espoused for the last five years. Why should my bullshit line change when his hasn’t?

45

Where was Social Security? First of all, its mathematically impossible for this program to continue. The program was devised when America was the acendent hegemonic power, with plenty of spare coin. We’ll probably stay on top for a long time, but the fast growth days are gone. Most of you guys will basically collect a watered down check and get back less than you paid in.

Secondly, no mention of how SS dollars could have prevented all this, if it had been invested in capitalism (as Roosevelt wanted). Instead of getting a paltry check, most would live like kings. Hmmm…maybe that was the goal. Poor people dependent on a handout are easier to rule. Hmmm…

46

[quote]hspder wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
Would I not be mistaken to say that inheritance does not constitute a PRIMARY source of income as you indicated in your original post, save for a few cases in which the individual in question is contributing little if anything beyond their consumption to society or the economy.

That might in fact be the case in many situations too, yes, especially after paying off all the debt.

However, don’t underestimate the number of the “few” cases. I know a few people whose parents had life insurance policies that paid out millions… or that had huge houses that are worth also millions and were completely paid out several decades ago at fraction of their value now. These people sudenly became very wealthy the day their parents died. It would be quite unfair for them to receive such a downfall – tax-free for their parents, especially if property taxes are eliminated – without paying any tax themselves, especially considering they did little (or nothing) to earn it and they would not, again, pay any property tax on it.

(sorry to repeat myself, but the absence of property tax in this system is key, or it could, in fact, be considered a situation of double taxation)
[/quote]

Actually, in this case, you can’t reference enought about the no property taxes part. Given that info it is a windfall. I’m still not so sure I want to use the words–‘they aren’t entitled.’ I see your point, but the gov’t got their money at the proper value–then. Why would they then be entitled to it now. I can see that there would be a large grey area when trying to convert systems and make it fair.

The loopholes closing is key. Why then wouldn’t you, or would you, just consider a flat tax rate. Or would there be gradations and classes like now?

47

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

This really is garbage Irish. It’s a tone like yours that prevents actual discussion and makes it all the easier to fall back on complete rhetoric.

Your answer to everything is strictly anti-Bush. What about the actual innitiative? Yes I know it was a political speech, but didn’t anything get your engine going. NO. Too busy hating to see any type of future until old W gets out of there.

I know you don’t believe this, but Bush being an oilman has nothing to do with it. True, innovation will cost money. This is the crux. But for everyone of you who bitches about Exxon profits, but does nothing about it you’re the biggest hypocrits.

Please show me where Bush wants to gut SS. Forget it. You’re not even thinking for yourself. From now on I’ll just call you Mr. Pelose(sp). Your tone is so negative, you don’t want to work towards any common goals or good, you’d rather bitch about your perception of W than carry on any meaningful conversation about what this country can and should do to move forward.

Get over it dude. Your angry young white boy stance makes you look juvenile. Every single ‘rebuttal’, for lack of a better word, was nothing but rehashed partisan garbage—the exact stuff I said let’s forget and see how we would better ourselves. I guess that was too much comprehension for one day.

Sorry for the blow up, but it just gets me how we can’t even get one post past the original before the same old,sameold just starts up again. Too bad. There sure is plenty to talk about.

I will stop saying the same thing when Bush stops giving the same fucking speech!

What do you want?

Yes, lets make social security private. Let’s take the system that
has worked properly for 70 years and change everything, dumping money onto Wall Street. I don’t agree! I wouldn’t work together for the sake of “bipartisanship” when that means adhering to what the Republican definition of bipartisanship means. They wanted to ditch the fucking filibuster! Its a goddamn power grab! What the fuck do you want?

You want my idea? Get the fucking Republicans out of office. Vote them out. Until that happens, nothing will be accomplished. Bush has done nothing but divide, even amongst his own party occasionally. What do you want me to say?

That even after all his shit, his scandals on every level, his war, his bullshit tax cuts, his eavesdropping, his PATRIOT Act, that we can all make up and be friends? And now that he’s done all this, now we should all look for the greater good? Get the fuck out of here. Its unrealistic, and completely irrational to think that anything can be accomplished after the split he has caused between liberal and conservative.

His speech was the same rhetoric that he has espoused for the last five years. Why should my bullshit line change when his hasn’t?[/quote]

Pardon me–but the fact that you believe that Bush is the sole reason for all the ills you have listed invalidates your opinion. I would not be in agreement with his inital proposal to change ss. Not many were–Republicans included–and that is why it died.

The filibuster was a garbage move. That’s on you guys.

The Patriot Act as well as the eaves dropping was ok’d by both the vote for the act and the oversight and approval of Dem leadership. If that’s what you call Harry Reid.

But anyway–it’s an attitude like yours–the unwillingness to argue and discuss orderly. To put private opinion aside for the greater good that is stalemating this country. Not Bush himself.

But keep playing those cards. It’s really working for you, your party, and our country.

Insanity…

48

What I’m saying is that nothing new was proposed. It was the same bullshit that he has said forever. There was a jab at the democrats on social security, and another jab at the war critics. He is not being partisan. He talks about candor, but is not candid himself.

We aren’t winning the war in Iraq, it is at best static by now. He has divided so much that his bills and ideas will not go through anyway. Its just dissapointing. The man, at his base, is a good man, who has bad ideals, and worse leadership skills. He needs to stop being so idealistic about this and look at the truth.

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Where was Social Security? First of all, its mathematically impossible for this program to continue. The program was devised when America was the acendent hegemonic power, with plenty of spare coin. We’ll probably stay on top for a long time, but the fast growth days are gone. Most of you guys will basically collect a watered down check and get back less than you paid in.

Secondly, no mention of how SS dollars could have prevented all this, if it had been invested in capitalism (as Roosevelt wanted). Instead of getting a paltry check, most would live like kings. Hmmm…maybe that was the goal. Poor people dependent on a handout are easier to rule. Hmmm…[/quote]

I see (some) of your point. But ss was never intended to make/let people live like kings.

And the great conspiracy theory of helping rule is…well…Hmmmmm

The system was run poorly and funded so much more than intended. That said, a tweak would put it in solid standing for generations to come.

50

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

This really is garbage Irish. It’s a tone like yours that prevents actual discussion and makes it all the easier to fall back on complete rhetoric.

Your answer to everything is strictly anti-Bush. What about the actual innitiative? Yes I know it was a political speech, but didn’t anything get your engine going. NO. Too busy hating to see any type of future until old W gets out of there.

I know you don’t believe this, but Bush being an oilman has nothing to do with it. True, innovation will cost money. This is the crux. But for everyone of you who bitches about Exxon profits, but does nothing about it you’re the biggest hypocrits.

Please show me where Bush wants to gut SS. Forget it. You’re not even thinking for yourself. From now on I’ll just call you Mr. Pelose(sp). Your tone is so negative, you don’t want to work towards any common goals or good, you’d rather bitch about your perception of W than carry on any meaningful conversation about what this country can and should do to move forward.

Get over it dude. Your angry young white boy stance makes you look juvenile. Every single ‘rebuttal’, for lack of a better word, was nothing but rehashed partisan garbage—the exact stuff I said let’s forget and see how we would better ourselves. I guess that was too much comprehension for one day.

Sorry for the blow up, but it just gets me how we can’t even get one post past the original before the same old,sameold just starts up again. Too bad. There sure is plenty to talk about.

I will stop saying the same thing when Bush stops giving the same fucking speech!

What do you want?

Yes, lets make social security private. Let’s take the system that
has worked properly for 70 years and change everything, dumping money onto Wall Street. I don’t agree! I wouldn’t work together for the sake of “bipartisanship” when that means adhering to what the Republican definition of bipartisanship means. They wanted to ditch the fucking filibuster! Its a goddamn power grab! What the fuck do you want?

You want my idea? Get the fucking Republicans out of office. Vote them out. Until that happens, nothing will be accomplished. Bush has done nothing but divide, even amongst his own party occasionally. What do you want me to say?

That even after all his shit, his scandals on every level, his war, his bullshit tax cuts, his eavesdropping, his PATRIOT Act, that we can all make up and be friends? And now that he’s done all this, now we should all look for the greater good? Get the fuck out of here. Its unrealistic, and completely irrational to think that anything can be accomplished after the split he has caused between liberal and conservative.

His speech was the same rhetoric that he has espoused for the last five years. Why should my bullshit line change when his hasn’t?

Pardon me–but the fact that you believe that Bush is the sole reason for all the ills you have listed invalidates your opinion. I would not be in agreement with his inital proposal to change ss. Not many were–Republicans included–and that is why it died.

The filibuster was a garbage move. That’s on you guys.

The Patriot Act as well as the eaves dropping was ok’d by both the vote for the act and the oversight and approval of Dem leadership. If that’s what you call Harry Reid.

But anyway–it’s an attitude like yours–the unwillingness to argue and discuss orderly. To put private opinion aside for the greater good that is stalemating this country. Not Bush himself.

But keep playing those cards. It’s really working for you, your party, and our country.

Insanity…[/quote]

I have said many times that the Democrats are just as at fault. I don’t call myself a Democrat, as I’m farther left than they are (you noticed I’m sure). I am amazed by how complacent and pussified they are.

In my eyes, Congress is many rich people making life better for other rich people, and the upper classes. You know my philosophies. The Republicans should not exist, and the Democrats are little better. So I don’t know what to tell you.

I figure the government is so fucked up now that it really doesn’t matter what goes on. But seeing the smirking face on the TV doesn’t make me any more hopeful for the future.

51

[quote]hspder wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
Would I not be mistaken to say that inheritance does not constitute a PRIMARY source of income as you indicated in your original post, save for a few cases in which the individual in question is contributing little if anything beyond their consumption to society or the economy.

That might in fact be the case in many situations too, yes, especially after paying off all the debt.

However, don’t underestimate the number of the “few” cases. I know a few people whose parents had life insurance policies that paid out millions… or that had huge houses that are worth also millions and were completely paid out several decades ago at fraction of their value now.

These people sudenly became very wealthy the day their parents died. It would be quite unfair for them to receive such a downfall – tax-free for their parents, especially if property taxes are eliminated – without paying any tax themselves, especially considering they did little (or nothing) to earn it and they would not, again, pay any property tax on it.

(sorry to repeat myself, but the absence of property tax in this system is key, or it could, in fact, be considered a situation of double taxation)
[/quote]

Sorry dude I AM A FUCKING RETARD, I was trying to agree with you that this is not a primary source of income and threw in an extra “not”

I guess I’m just not good at multi-tasking.

52

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Did either of you two cheerleaders answer the question? I asked how much it cost, not for your opinion of whether it was needed. I could have written that opinion for you without your input. It isn’t like you all are unpredictable.

Yea…the funny thing about the Internet (as you well know) is that you get to read opinions that you don’t like. Whether you can predict them or not is irrelevant ,(which is similar to most of your political opinions).

As if any one of us couldn’t predict that you would disagree with President Bush on Iraq.

{b] HELLO ANYONE HOME? [/b] (knocking on Prof’s head)

Wake up my man!

You really are a freaking riot. No seriously don’t ever change…[/quote]

Where have I ever written that there never needed to be a war in Iraq? I haven’t written that. Not once have those words come from my computer. My stance has ALWAYS been that we went in wrong and at the wrong time.

You would know this if you quit trying to believe that you know how I think. The question was asked how much has been spent on this war.

You know, the war that has still not resulted in the capture of the prime suspect in a mass terrorist murder who apparently is so good at hiding that we can’t even do an airstrike in an attempt to secretly take out the men close to him without detroying so many innocents that we spark even more hatred against us? The question was HOW MUCH HAS IT COST. Is this really that hard to answer? I just want to know.

The most predictable team of posters on this site calls me predictable? Was this an accomplishment? A thesaurus may have helped you at least come up with a different word.

53

I think the fascism portrayed by the apprehension of dangerous terrorists who had the audacity to threaten the nation by wearing a t-shirt to be the most interesting thing happening at the time.

Doesn’t anyone think it is about time to take a step back from the precipice?

Sure, they were released… but really, the concept of AUTHORITY has gone nuts since 9/11. I understand it, but it’s really absolutely insane.

54

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Where was Social Security? First of all, its mathematically impossible for this program to continue. The program was devised when America was the acendent hegemonic power, with plenty of spare coin. We’ll probably stay on top for a long time, but the fast growth days are gone. Most of you guys will basically collect a watered down check and get back less than you paid in.
[/quote]

It is actually quite impossible for the social security program to continue. The program will not be able to pay its projected obligations after the year 2042 if the current formula for the annual adjustment of benefits is mantained, whereby the annual increase is the same increase as the cost of living adjustment.

This, of course assumes that the present age structure is mantained. After 2042 the system would be able to pay approximately 73% of its projected benefit obligations, which, given the current formula for annual adjustment would likely be a fairly significant amount of money. It is also projected that the level of beneifts would remain fairly stable thereafter.

This projection, however relies upon the assumption that we will, as a country, have been able to better curb our population growth by that time (this is something that I doubt will come to pass as we come closer and closer to 2042).

It is also possible that if the benefits adjustment formula is changed to be based upon the rate of inflation rather than the COLA (which is one proposed option for reform) that by 2042 the level of benefits that could be paid by the social security system could exceede the amount required by law.

There are, of coures, myriad other options for reforming the social security system and ensuring its survival, along with acceptable rates of return.

I would like to know where the information that Roosevelt wanted to invest social security funds comes from, I have been researching social security reform for some time and I intend in the next couple months to start to look at the political history of the system and I think this information could be of aid to me.

Thanks,
Paul

55

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
The system was run poorly and funded so much more than intended. That said, a tweak would put it in solid standing for generations to come.[/quote]

is a little subjective of a term, I think a number of people here would not accept that description, however, A smal tweak would surely allow the system to survive in with its present benefits formula.

56

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
The system was run poorly and funded so much more than intended. That said, a tweak would put it in solid standing for generations to come.

is a little subjective of a term, I think a number of people here would not accept that description, however, A smal tweak would surely allow the system to survive in with its present benefits formula.[/quote]

Granted

But with a tweak to the pay in and a tweak to the pay out, I think those that need themost should be able to use the system as it was intended. That does infer some personal responsibility for ones own financial affairs along the way.

I don’t think it should be presumed that this is a golden nestegg awaiting your golden years.

57

I think “tweaking” is pretty specific as well…

Let’s vote on it. All good ideas deserve an up or down vote and in a timely manner no less. Should we “tweak” it?

All those in favor?

58

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think “tweaking” is pretty specific as well…

Let’s vote on it. All good ideas deserve an up or down vote and in a timely manner no less. Should we “tweak” it?

All those in favor?[/quote]

I’ve offered my idea already for ‘tweaking’ Unlike you who tries, and fails, to simply jam up what other people say instead of offering up any real discussion. I don’t think it is so out of whack that it should have been Bush’s first choice of things to fix.

Is that better. How about we up and down vote whether you contribute anything of substance.

59

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
The loopholes closing is key. Why then wouldn’t you, or would you, just consider a flat tax rate. Or would there be gradations and classes like now?[/quote]

A flat tax rate has a fundamental problem, which is that it ignores is the almost fixed cost of living. Both the upper and the lower extremes of income are far beyond reasonable costs of living – meaning that there are people that just don’t make enough money to live in any conditions worthy of a developed country – i.e., they simply cannot afford to pay any kind of income tax – and, on the other hand, there are people that make much more money than they are able to spend reasonably in several lifetimes.

Before you say it, I already know the right severely dislikes the idea of using taxes to normalize incomes, but the fact remains that History tells us that if you do not do something to increase the size of the middle class – even if it means putting the large majority of the tax burden on the rich – society will fall into disarray.

The rich can afford to carry a high burden of taxes, the poor cannot. Simple as that.

I’m not saying it is fair – but I do believe that it is absolutely necessary for a society to function and keep functioning in the long run.

Having said all that, theoretically there is a way to have a flat tax rate and still pull people into the middle class, that for some reason the populist right seems to be less allergic to: to heavily subsidize essentials like housing and health costs for the poor, basically allowing them to afford paying taxes.

Unfortunately, experience has proven that strategy creates a bunch of problems in itself and is close to unmanageable. I believe it’s better not to charge taxes to the poor than to collect them and then essentially return them in the form of subsidies.

60

Remember Bush’s line about how he was going to break the addiction to Mid East oil?

Well it’s only a day aftyer his speech and he’s already backpedaling away from that.

“Administration backs off Bush’s vow to reduce Mideast oil imports”

"WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn’t mean it literally."

This will probably go the way of Bush’s promise last year of a mission to Mars, and social security privitization