Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Fox news doing what it does best

Tags:
  • World News
Last response: in Hobbies & Leisure
March 16, 2012 9:19:13 PM
March 17, 2012 12:06:54 PM

Do you know why taxes are going up next year, "By design?"

The Democratic party blocked making them permanent. They have to be extended every few two years if I recall. The Republican party wanted to make them permanent.

Now, to those who watch Hannity and follow his investigations, this would make sense as they have the history of the argument being made. An outsider who only wants to take soundbytes will often now have the full perspective.

Try picking up watching a movie halfway through. Not always easy to follow the storyline. Same principle.
March 20, 2012 6:31:07 PM

They didn't want to make them permanent until the republican party would compromise on excluding the rich, which they never did(surprise). They did extend them though, and calling Hannity an investigator is pure rubbish. Watching only right leaning media will also cloud your perspective.
Related resources
March 21, 2012 12:53:48 AM

Thats one example of what the liberal media pulls of every single day.
March 21, 2012 1:41:58 AM

Sure, who would question a supposed hack of a hack, brought to you by onnnne funnnnny guuuuuy
March 21, 2012 1:57:34 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
"The rich". Is that all you got? The evil rich?

I assume, assume mind you, that you support the occupy movement. If so, why are you not "occupying" the white house? President Obama's administration is full of former wall street executives/millionaires/evil rich people.

SURPRISE you dupe.


It's amazing how your brain only processes two words of my entire statement and then bases an argument on those two words alone. Next time try to respond with a comment worth typing.
March 21, 2012 4:00:55 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
It is an outright lie when you say the Republicans didn't compromise on the tax increases. Boehner and Cantor offered Obama $808 billion in tax increases during the debt negotiations. Obama turned it down and then went out and directly lied to the American people by claiming the Republicans in Congress would not compromise on taxes.

Front page story in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/03/15/gIQAH...

Sorry I called you a dupe john. Perhaps you were just unaware of the truth.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/07/boehner-cal...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/us/politics/10debt.ht...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082266-503544....

Not sure where your getting this $808 billion in tax increases from, but even if Boehner and Cantor did offer it, there is no way in hell they would of got the majority of the republican party to endorse it. They are all looking toward their upcoming elections and would rather the economy went bankrupt than to lose their re-election by being responsible for a tax increase in any way, shape or form.

Just look at the links, there all say that he walked away from the talks over tax increases, and I only posted 3 of the 20 or so that I looked at. Perhaps someone else is the dupe in this conversation?
March 21, 2012 5:26:14 PM

I wonder.. why someone like me who isn't rich, stands up for the rich and not wanting higher taxes on them? They pay their fair share. Again, the issue isn't taxes but spending. Tax is the distraction, spending is the issue. Someday, hopefully those who do not understand will.
March 21, 2012 6:42:37 PM

riser said:
I wonder.. why someone like me who isn't rich, stands up for the rich and not wanting higher taxes on them? They pay their fair share. Again, the issue isn't taxes but spending. Tax is the distraction, spending is the issue. Someday, hopefully those who do not understand will.


I totally agree that spending is PART of the issue, I've said it numerous times but you label me as a liberal and automatically discount that statement and substitute my opinion to that of only increased taxes. Its quite incredible to see this happen over and over again.

To reiterate for the hundredth time, we need a balanced approach!! Bush made a fatal flaw when he was in office, he lowered taxes while fighting 2 wars on a bubble economy, this lead to the beginnings of the recession. With ever increasing healthcare costs and increased defense spending also added into the mix, you have one big hole to dig ourselves out of, not to mention the weakened global economy which hurts us as well. So, we need a balanced approach to fix things long term. Thinking in the short term mantra that spending cuts are the answer is just foolish. Spending cuts will help short term but will begin a cycle that will make it impossible for us to climb out of this hole, we need growth!! We can have some spending cuts to help with the process but it cannot be the only part of the solution. One day, I hope people will put aside politics and look at the problem logically.
March 21, 2012 6:46:42 PM

riser said:
I wonder.. why someone like me who isn't rich, stands up for the rich and not wanting higher taxes on them? They pay their fair share. Again, the issue isn't taxes but spending. Tax is the distraction, spending is the issue. Someday, hopefully those who do not understand will.


I'll tell you why. You understand the most basic principles of politics in the U.S as well as how economics work. You are informed and aren't brainwashed. That why you understand spending, not taxes, is the issue. The left is a very sad case. Most of the left are the ones who need government support, therefore they do not care. All they want is there welfare checks. The rest of the left who make a living and have education are brainwashed to such a far extent that nothing can really help them at this point sadly. The occupy wall street movements are a prime representation of the mass clueless-ness of the left.
March 21, 2012 6:56:08 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
It's in the WashPo article john. They called Obama's bluff is all they did. They gave him exactly what he wanted.

Obama never wanted a deal is the truth.

How was he supposed to blame a "do nothing Republican led Congress" if he did a deal?

How do you know they couldn't have gotten the House to go along? You don't know that at all.

Obama lied, again, simple as that.


Walking away from talks pivotal to our nations future is not calling a bluff, its juvenile at best. Stop glorifying the inability of our government to get things done.

He wouldn't of been able to get the house to go along because of the all the tea party representatives who would rather see our country collapse than compromise with democrats. He can't get the republican party to rally around anything that has the hint of bipartisanship.

The payroll tax extension is a great example of whats wrong with the republican party. They can't even compromise with each other.

http://theweek.com/article/index/222697/payroll-tax-fig...
March 21, 2012 7:04:33 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
I'll tell you why. You understand the most basic principles of politics in the U.S as well as how economics work. You are informed and aren't brainwashed. That why you understand spending, not taxes, is the issue. The left is a very sad case. Most of the left are the ones who need government support, therefore they do not care. All they want is there welfare checks. The rest of the left who make a living and have education are brainwashed to such a far extent that nothing can really help them at this point sadly. The occupy wall street movements are a prime representation of the mass clueless-ness of the left.


HA! What is sad is your comprehension of our political spectrum and the wide variety of people that comprise it. If the left is nothing but a bunch of bums and brainwashed liberals, then the right is nothing but a bunch of uneducated hicks with double digit IQ's. Your attempt to classify all people who have a different political view than yours only proves that you have a closed mindset and are inept when it comes to comprehension of the more complex issues, like our economy.
March 21, 2012 7:21:43 PM

johnsonma said:
I totally agree that spending is PART of the issue, I've said it numerous times but you label me as a liberal and automatically discount that statement and substitute my opinion to that of only increased taxes. Its quite incredible to see this happen over and over again.

To reiterate for the hundredth time, we need a balanced approach!! Bush made a fatal flaw when he was in office, he lowered taxes while fighting 2 wars on a bubble economy, this lead to the beginnings of the recession. With ever increasing healthcare costs and increased defense spending also added into the mix, you have one big hole to dig ourselves out of, not to mention the weakened global economy which hurts us as well. So, we need a balanced approach to fix things long term. Thinking in the short term mantra that spending cuts are the answer is just foolish. Spending cuts will help short term but will begin a cycle that will make it impossible for us to climb out of this hole, we need growth!! We can have some spending cuts to help with the process but it cannot be the only part of the solution. One day, I hope people will put aside politics and look at the problem logically.


So a 2-3% cut across the board caused a huge deficit and excessive spending. The extra increase of ~$80-90 billion spending a year in the war is part of the reason.

What are you thoughts on the ARM loan and sub-prime lending which has already far exceeded the cost both wars? I think it was last at 3 or 4 trillion total cost, whereas the two wars are still under $1 trillion after 10 years?

Even then, a very recent article talking about the Buffet Rule was going to generate only a few $10s of billions. Even returning the 2%-3% decrease in taxes doesn't generate that much money.

Let's examine that and I'll let you proceed with filling in the details. We remove the tax cuts from Bush/Obama. 2-3% increase across the board which increases revenue by $189 (rounded by) billion dollars a year. We implement the Buffet Rule generating $37 billion extra. We now have $226 billion increased revenue (everything held constant, no economic impact from increasing taxes).

Now we are at a $1.1 Trillion dollar deficit. Mind you, I'm looking at it right now, only moving forward. The Bush Tax cuts were estimated to have cost around 2.5-2.7 trillion over 8 years. I took the average of those 8 years and put it at $189. The recent CBO (I think it was CBO) said the Buffet rule would increase revenue by $37 billion (everything held constant).

Can you continue explaining your perspective on this?
March 21, 2012 8:14:30 PM

riser said:
So a 2-3% cut across the board caused a huge deficit and excessive spending. The extra increase of ~$80-90 billion spending a year in the war is part of the reason.

Your cherry picking numbers for the wars, and it was much more than just Iraq and Afghanistan,
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/much-wars-cost-repo...


What are you thoughts on the ARM loan and sub-prime lending which has already far exceeded the cost both wars? I think it was last at 3 or 4 trillion total cost, whereas the two wars are still under $1 trillion after 10 years?
1 trillion? Bull****

Even then, a very recent article talking about the Buffet Rule was going to generate only a few $10s of billions. Even returning the 2%-3% decrease in taxes doesn't generate that much money.

The new budget will call for $1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire, closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct

Let's examine that and I'll let you proceed with filling in the details. We remove the tax cuts from Bush/Obama. 2-3% increase across the board which increases revenue by $189 (rounded by) billion dollars a year. We implement the Buffet Rule generating $37 billion extra. We now have $226 billion increased revenue (everything held constant, no economic impact from increasing taxes).
How can I fill in the details when you cherry pick numbers without including the total amount proposed in the budget proposal Obama set forth?

Now we are at a $1.1 Trillion dollar deficit. Mind you, I'm looking at it right now, only moving forward. The Bush Tax cuts were estimated to have cost around 2.5-2.7 trillion over 8 years. I took the average of those 8 years and put it at $189. The recent CBO (I think it was CBO) said the Buffet rule would increase revenue by $37 billion (everything held constant).

Can you continue explaining your perspective on this?


Every little bit helps, with the increases revenue the cuts will be less severe and it will be easier to get ourselves out of the hole and at the same time we will maintain our quality of life and place within the global economy. If we do this solely through budget cuts we will be shooting ourselves in the foot father down the road. Yes, we may emerge from the deficit but we will be at an immediate disadvantage in the global economy.
March 21, 2012 8:15:50 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Boehner and Cantor gave Obama what he wanted. Obama turned it down because he really wanted no deal in order to blame the do nothing republicans in congress. He then came out and completely lied to the American people about the whole affair and the media parroted the lie day after day for over a week.

Obama lied and his willing accomplices in the media helped him perpetuate the lie. Plane and simple.


Yup it was the media and those damn aliens, luckily I got my tin hat on.
March 21, 2012 8:28:22 PM

johnsonma said:
Every little bit helps, with the increases revenue the cuts will be less severe and it will be easier to get ourselves out of the hole and at the same time we will maintain our quality of life and place within the global economy. If we do this solely through budget cuts we will be shooting ourselves in the foot father down the road. Yes, we may emerge from the deficit but we will be at an immediate disadvantage in the global economy.


We would still be taking on $1.1 trillion of known debt a year. We need to stop taking on debt by balancing the budget. Then we can start paying off our debt. Right now the cost is $202 billion dollars a year paid in interest only. For comparison, military spending is $692 billion.

Every little bit would have helped $12 trillion in debt ago. By the end of this year we'll be touching $17 trillion in debt while incurring over $1 trillion additional debt a year per. If we're paying $202 billion on $15.4 trillion, add $1.5 trillion onto that. Next year's debt payment would be $225 billion a year.

Not only do we need to cut $1.1 trillion in additional spending, we need to cut additional spending to start paying down debt. We're living on a $3.5 trillion dollar budget on a $2.4 billion dollar revenue.

Every little bit doesn't help anymore. In 5 years (Let's asy Obama wins another 4) that yearly debt payment will be $325+ billion a year! That's along as we do not have any more additional "stimilus" or anything like that coming out above and beyond the budget.

Sure, raise revenues. We have to start cutting a lot more in spending though. As a honest effort, if the government can cut spending significantly I would be willing to pay more knowing they have it under control.

Do we start paying more now? Or do we start cutting the budget first? Which one comes first? $202 billion a year going to waste.. even then, if we didn't have that debt payment we would be deficit spending by $900 billion a year!

Raise revenues all you want, it still pales compared to cutting the budget. The only solution is cutting the budget. That's the only place where we can make a large enough dent as quickly as we need to do it.
March 21, 2012 8:34:31 PM

riser said:
We would still be taking on $1.1 trillion of known debt a year. We need to stop taking on debt by balancing the budget. Then we can start paying off our debt. Right now the cost is $202 billion dollars a year paid in interest only. For comparison, military spending is $692 billion.

Every little bit would have helped $12 trillion in debt ago. By the end of this year we'll be touching $17 trillion in debt while incurring over $1 trillion additional debt a year per. If we're paying $202 billion on $15.4 trillion, add $1.5 trillion onto that. Next year's debt payment would be $225 billion a year.

Not only do we need to cut $1.1 trillion in additional spending, we need to cut additional spending to start paying down debt. We're living on a $3.5 trillion dollar budget on a $2.4 billion dollar revenue.

Every little bit doesn't help anymore. In 5 years (Let's asy Obama wins another 4) that yearly debt payment will be $325+ billion a year! That's along as we do not have any more additional "stimilus" or anything like that coming out above and beyond the budget.

Sure, raise revenues. We have to start cutting a lot more in spending though. As a honest effort, if the government can cut spending significantly I would be willing to pay more knowing they have it under control.

Do we start paying more now? Or do we start cutting the budget first? Which one comes first? $202 billion a year going to waste.. even then, if we didn't have that debt payment we would be deficit spending by $900 billion a year!

Raise revenues all you want, it still pales compared to cutting the budget. The only solution is cutting the budget. That's the only place where we can make a large enough dent as quickly as we need to do it.


K were in agreement then, for the most part, balanced budget.
March 22, 2012 10:17:32 PM

johnsonma said:
HA! What is sad is your comprehension of our political spectrum and the wide variety of people that comprise it. If the left is nothing but a bunch of bums and brainwashed liberals, then the right is nothing but a bunch of uneducated hicks with double digit IQ's. Your attempt to classify all people who have a different political view than yours only proves that you have a closed mindset and are inept when it comes to comprehension of the more complex issues, like our economy.


I comprehend the political spectrum quite well. I also know the wide variety of people that comprise it. Statistics show that better educated and wealthier individuals as well as families tend to be on the right end of the political spectrum.

I am not classifying all people that have different political view points than me. I am only classifying liberals who based their viewpoints on lies or concepts that do not make any sense. Liberals base their ideology on concepts that have historically failed. Even Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is attempting the same thing and expecting different results.
March 23, 2012 12:23:59 AM

This is a matter of who has the bigger d*ck.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The House has the authority to raise and lower taxes, not Obama.

The House is the ONLY authority over the budget, not Obama

The House has the ability to STOP the President, (along with the Senate), to stop the President if he is out of line.

The House has to move forward to get the job done, not relying on Obama...or Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul.


The issue is both taxes and spending. We spend over 600 billion on entitlement, something like 300-500 on military,( the war and defense itself) while the rest comes from interest on our debt. Guess who holds most of our debt? China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? The European Union? Nope: The American people. I cannot remember for what, but Uncle Sam owes the people some green.

Want to reduce the debt? Okay...raise taxes to all equal levels..like 25 percent for all brackets, reduce entitlements to 300 billion and make sure not another penny more, end the damn wars we have been having and reduce military spending to 200 billion...include the 210 billion in interests. The country should generate about 800 billion in taxes, ( a guesstimate), and pay out (300+200+210)= 710 billion. That should come out to ~90 billion in extra cash.

Okay, now...let us assume all things equal in the economy, ( ceteris paribus), take the 90 billion budget surplus and add it to the public debt.

17.000 Trill
+(-90.000 Bill)
16.910trill

Next, take the same amount and continue.

Ceteris Paribus: It would take 190 years to pay off the debt.

Too long, and according to Keynes, " In the long run, we are all dead."


----------------------------------------

Okay, back to the drawing board.

New idea: What if we set aside a certain percentage of tax revenue an the remaining revenues to operate the government?

Okay, let us take teh 800 billion tax again. Take out 40% and set aside for debt related issues. That would be 320 billion for debt, and 480 for government expenditures.

Take all government operated systems and give 1% each equally according to accounting records.

EX:

Defense @ 1%= 3 billion
Education @ 1%= 200 million
SS @ 1%= 2 billion

etc...

When all systems have been satisfied with a 1% given revenue, then go about with 2%, then 3%...

Until the lowest % cannot be fulfilled equally. Basically if at 75% that all agencies cannot get their fare share w/o sacrifice, then the rest of the money goes elsewhere...aka the taxpayer.

Now about the debt.

Taking the 320 billion and subtract interest. 110 billion.

Subtract it.

Ceteris Paribus: 155 years.

Still too long!

How about raising taxes to 35 percent base for all brackets?

Should that place us at 1.1 trillion revenue?

Then what? Will that be enough? Do we spend too much as it is? Do we really need more taxes?




--------------------------

Here is my issue:

No matter what you do, it will not be resolved over night as most people want. I laughed when Obama said he will reduce the debt by half into is first term. I also laugh at conservatives for saying that it is not a tax issue. Correct, but you still need money to pay off your bills! Lower spending on pet projects: Afghanistan and Entitlements.

You know why Congress is not doing much for you? Maybe it is because you guys are too damn lazy to vote the losers out? You allow them to play games, you allow them to go about screwing you somehow, and you bitch all day long on how the government is not for you! Vote them all out! Change the government! The Founders set us a system where you are in control through a representative! If they do not represent you, fire them! If a person is not ding their job....regardless of your viewpoints...then fire them boss.

I'm so sick of hearing my superiors blame the government for bad behaviour, when all they do is keep voting them in.

Want the liberals and conservatives to get the job done? Here is an idea: Tell them. tell them that if they don't work with the 'other guys', no matter how good of a campaign they run...they will be fired. no questions asked. Tell your friends, neighbours, church goers, club members, business peers. Tell them to fire this guy if he does not do what we want!

I have spoken. I await your angered responses.

I ask the mods to consider this a fair post.


dogman.

P.S. I could give a rats @$$ about politics. I just want to see this country succeed.
March 23, 2012 2:09:35 AM

I know trickle down gets trampled down, cause the MSM says so, but remember this, we were fine until the economy tanked.
No huge borrowing, things were somewhat in control/
Now, if the economy does rev up again, which for certain reasons currently isnt allowed to, things would work out.
If inflation hits, were pretty scr3w3d.
Too high loans on devalued properties, and add in inflation, it will not only once again kill off the current feeble housing market, but destroy even more in their over/undervalued houses than what weve already see, which is several times over out current debt/spending.
This happened because of government meddling, and now we have Obamacare, which currently is believed to be over twice what was previously been thought, with possibly even higher costs to come, and is a terrible time for such nonsense
March 23, 2012 2:57:55 AM

Inflation is normal in any economy. It is the RATE of inflation that will harm us.

Wasn't it back in the 70's with Carter, we as a nation began implementing laws that were beginning to harm us...both conservative and liberal?

Do you want the housing bubble to pop once more again never? Here is an idea...get rid of loan laws that enable such risky loans, and have people reconcile current debt before future loans.

'Obamacare', ( really is actually Clintoncare...), aka the Universal Healthcare Law...isn't, or wasn't suppose to go into effect until 2015. If so, then a lot of people I know have not gotten their fare share!

I agree, Obama has abused the executive branch. Congress has lost it...and the Supreme Court...Once again...Is the Red-Headed Stepchild.
March 23, 2012 11:02:30 AM

US companies not paying enough tax to the US govt ... that's why your country is in so much poo.

March 23, 2012 12:37:10 PM

Reynod said:
US companies not paying enough tax to the US govt ... that's why your country is in so much poo.


Yeah, they debunked that theory. In fact, the companies that didn't pay any taxes were the far left companies such as GE. Whereas all the Oil companies had paid their taxes. That theory was blown out of the water. The problem the gov't has is that those companies did not earn enough money to pay the level of taxes that the gov't wanted. That is the issue.
March 23, 2012 2:01:41 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I know trickle down gets trampled down, cause the MSM says so, but remember this, we were fine until the economy tanked.
No huge borrowing, things were somewhat in control/
Now, if the economy does rev up again, which for certain reasons currently isnt allowed to, things would work out.
A very good point, we need to grow our way out of this
If inflation hits, were pretty scr3w3d.
Super inflation = bad mild inflation=good With mild inflation it will be cheaper for the rest of the world to buy U.S. good which leads to an increase in manufacturing and thus an increase in jobs
Too high loans on devalued properties, and add in inflation, it will not only once again kill off the current feeble housing market, but destroy even more in their over/undervalued houses than what weve already see, which is several times over out current debt/spending.
This happened because of government meddling, and now we have Obamacare, which currently is believed to be over twice what was previously been thought, with possibly even higher costs to come, and is a terrible time for such nonsense
Complete and utter lie, it will cost a little bit more but twice as much? Complete lie.
March 23, 2012 2:11:06 PM

riser said:
Yeah, they debunked that theory. In fact, the companies that didn't pay any taxes were the far left companies such as GE. Whereas all the Oil companies had paid their taxes. That theory was blown out of the water. The problem the gov't has is that those companies did not earn enough money to pay the level of taxes that the gov't wanted. That is the issue.


Far left companies such a GE? Wow riser! By the way, who debunked this theory? I would like to see some of the reasoning behind it. It's interesting how you political views affects your views of corporations as well. If they are oil companies, they obviously can do no wrong?
March 23, 2012 3:04:36 PM

Guys, the tax rate for the US is the highest in the world. No conspiracy...just the facts.

BTW, I would recommend all of you take a macro econ class at your local jr college just for shyts and giggles. You will learn a lot.
March 23, 2012 3:09:38 PM

GE supports the far left Green agenda. They are the company that has the most to gain from going green. You are seriously under informed. GE holds the patent on Wind Turbines which are being touted.

Come on man, step up and start informing yourself. GE is pushing heavily for the Green agenda while also paying zero in Corporate taxes in the US. Search it, is it very easy to find.

Watch how easy it is:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ge+taxes+2011

My political views are minimal; Economics, business, and moral authority trump anything politcal.
March 23, 2012 3:42:42 PM

They want green....they should hire me to design them an all electric jet....oh, wait....what about oil? :D 

That's right...
March 23, 2012 4:12:01 PM

riser said:
GE supports the far left Green agenda. They are the company that has the most to gain from going green. You are seriously under informed. GE holds the patent on Wind Turbines which are being touted.

Come on man, step up and start informing yourself. GE is pushing heavily for the Green agenda while also paying zero in Corporate taxes in the US. Search it, is it very easy to find.

Watch how easy it is:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ge+taxes+2011

My political views are minimal; Economics, business, and moral authority trump anything politcal.


Just because GE supports a green agenda does not mean they support the left, you are taking an issue and throwing it in with your political beliefs, maybe they think that there is a bigger market in renewable energy? There is a reason the subsidies are there, to promote the growth of the industry, they see an opportunity and take it. Since Obama put these subsidies in place, they are obviously in bed together. Your kidding yourself if you think I'm uninformed, your just completely close minded, and will not look at the other possibilities surrounding a discussion.

They paid zero for one year which is not unheard of, you can realize future losses to minimize taxes, among many other things.
March 23, 2012 4:24:01 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
According to the dept. of Energy the US has 1.124 trillion barrels of conventional oil in the ground. This doesn't include reserves yet to be discovered. Interestingly, most of these reserves reside under Federally owned land, not privately owned.

http://orbat.com/site/energy/us%20energy%20independence...

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index....

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-...

We're not running out anytime soon.


Too bad gasoline prices are dictated by international market forces and any increase in the drilling for oil has no real bearing on them.
March 23, 2012 4:36:39 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Jeffrey Immelt. GE. Obama job council. Flourescent bulbs made in China cheaply. Green.

Sorry for the brevity but you don't seem to be making the connection.


I see the connection, its a very poor example though.
March 23, 2012 4:37:32 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Is United States oil production not part of the world market? If not, how so?


Our production is a drop in the bucket when it comes to gasoline prices, research it and stop blindly following the drill baby drill bull****.
March 23, 2012 4:45:21 PM

johnsonma said:
Just because GE supports a green agenda does not mean they support the left, you are taking an issue and throwing it in with your political beliefs, maybe they think that there is a bigger market in renewable energy? There is a reason the subsidies are there, to promote the growth of the industry, they see an opportunity and take it. Since Obama put these subsidies in place, they are obviously in bed together. Your kidding yourself if you think I'm uninformed, your just completely close minded, and will not look at the other possibilities surrounding a discussion.

They paid zero for one year which is not unheard of, you can realize future losses to minimize taxes, among many other things.


You are clearly out of touch. That is a painful pill for you to swallow.

Do you understand why solar and wind technology does not work well in the US, but it can work well in Germany and other countries? Do you know? I doubt it. Keep living in your uninformed little bubble of opinions and as always, do not let facts get in your way.
March 23, 2012 5:23:11 PM

Did you guys know we export our oil, and import what we consume from Saudi Arabia?
March 23, 2012 7:33:31 PM

riser said:
You are clearly out of touch. That is a painful pill for you to swallow.

Do you understand why solar and wind technology does not work well in the US, but it can work well in Germany and other countries? Do you know? I doubt it. Keep living in your uninformed little bubble of opinions and as always, do not let facts get in your way.


LOL, tough pill for me to swallow huh, your arrogance precedes you riser. Maybe you should get off your high horse? Solar and wind are running into trouble because of the inability to store the electricity they produce, it was thought that if you built them close to the consumption points it would mitigate this, it is not working as well as they hoped, I am a bigger fan of nuclear/natural gas. Thanks for proving that you would rather bash on me than put forth any logic.

I believe they could eventually make solar/wind/water power work, it just needs more time and heavy R&D to make it reliable enough to turn off coal based power plants and such.
March 23, 2012 7:44:35 PM

Personally, I am a fusion guy...but don't tell me the logistics of that one!
March 23, 2012 7:58:05 PM

Fusion would solve so many problems. Would be pretty damn sweet too!
March 23, 2012 8:05:10 PM

I dare you to read up on ITER and DEMO. Both projects that will give us a base for future fusion.

However, look at each project and tell me what is wrong. What is it?

There is no current fuel that it readily bioavailable on Earth. Now, look to the Moon. He3 would be great. An aneutronic reaction is what we need and it yields higher energy output with virtually no radio-toxins.

Take a look at the basic reaction chart:

2p1n+2p1n=4p2n>2pn + 2p. Output 18.6 MeV.

Basically, 2 Helium 3 isotopes react to produce one Helium stable isotope and 2 protons. With that reaction comes 18.6 megaelectronvolts.

1 eV= 1.60217646 × 10^-19 joules

A lot of power for just one reaction itself.
March 23, 2012 8:40:25 PM

It is actually greener.... :pfff: 
March 23, 2012 10:19:38 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Thank you for your response dogman, always appreciated. :) 


Always hear to take on sarcasm, gamer! :sarcastic: 
March 24, 2012 4:37:42 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_p...
36 Yemen 288,400 0.34% 2009
— World 87,500,000[3] 100% 2011
35 Vietnam 300,600 0.36% 2010
11 Venezuela 2,472,000 2.93% 2009
56 Uzbekistan 70,910 0.08% 2009
104 Uruguay 997 0.00% 2010
3 United States 7,800,000[3] 8.91% 2011
19 United Kingdom 1,502,000 1.78% 2009
8 United Arab Emirates 2,798,000 3.32% 2009
52 Ukraine 99,930 0.12% 2009
75 U.S. Virgin Islands 16,870 0.02% 2009
41 Turkmenistan 197,700 0.23% 2009
62 Turkey 52,980 0.06% 2009
54 Tunisia 91,380 0.11% 2009
44 Trinidad and Tobago 151,600 0.18% 2009
53 Timor-Leste 96,270 0.11% 2009
32 Thailand 380,000 0.45% 2010
109 Tajikistan 221 0.00% 2009
37 Taiwan 276,800 0.33% 2009
31 Syria 400,400 0.48% 2009
100 Switzerland 3,488 0.00% 2009
94 Sweden 4,833 0.01% 2009
78 Suriname 15,190 0.02% 2009
51 Sudan 111,700 0.14% 2009
70 Spain 27,230 0.03% 2009
33 South Sudan 375,000 0.45% 2010
42 South Africa 191,000 0.23% 2009
112 Somalia 108 0.00% 2009
115 Slovenia 5 0.00% 2009
96 Slovakia 4,114 0.00% 2009
83 Singapore 10,910 0.01% 2009
114 Sierra Leone 29 0.00% 2009
80 Serbia 11,400 0.01% 2010
2 Saudi Arabia 8,800,000[3] 10.06% 2011
1 Russia 10,540,000[3] 12.01% 2011
49 Romania 117,000 0.14% 2009
20 Qatar 1,213,000 1.44% 2009
103 Puerto Rico 1,783 0.00% 2009
95 Portugal 4,721 0.01% 2009
68 Poland 34,140 0.04% 2009
85 Philippines 9,671 0.01% 2010
45 Peru 148,000 0.18% 2009
113 Paraguay 31 0.00% 2009
67 Papua New Guinea 35,090 0.04% 2009
116 Panama 2 0.00% 2009
59 Pakistan 59,140 0.07% 2009
25 Oman
March 24, 2012 2:55:21 PM

Reynod said:
US companies not paying enough tax to the US govt ... that's why your country is in so much poo.


Absolutely NOT! The spending is out of control. Billions here, billions there, trillions here, trillions there. If I were in charge of government, our tax rate would be half of what it is now and we would still be getting revenue. Its all about wasteful spending. The government needs to become more efficient like a private company. Private companies exist due to their economic efficiency. Minimum costs, maximum profit, maximum production. Given, the government needs to be of a larger span in operations than a private company, but the efficiency is leagues weaker.

Thing about the democratic party, you can make taxes 100% and they would still make a debt out of it.
March 26, 2012 2:27:47 PM

johnsonma said:
LOL, tough pill for me to swallow huh, your arrogance precedes you riser. Maybe you should get off your high horse? Solar and wind are running into trouble because of the inability to store the electricity they produce, it was thought that if you built them close to the consumption points it would mitigate this, it is not working as well as they hoped, I am a bigger fan of nuclear/natural gas. Thanks for proving that you would rather bash on me than put forth any logic.

I believe they could eventually make solar/wind/water power work, it just needs more time and heavy R&D to make it reliable enough to turn off coal based power plants and such.


You are clueless on why Solar doesn't work in the US. Our electrical grid needs to be updated. The electricity can't travel as far and too much power is lost. That's why we don't have solar fields in the middle of the desert serving up energy everywhere. If we were running on a newer grid like in Europe, solar would work. It is cost prohibitive in the US to make solar work.

Why do you think companies like First Solar have a single plant in the US (testing, development, some local sales) and all their new plants are being put in areas that can utilize solar energy? Those areas have newer grids.

Nuclear is great because it produces so much energy that what we lose in transferring it over a distance isn't as significant. When you don't produce as much, yet the loss is the same, it isn't beneficial.
March 26, 2012 2:55:17 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
Absolutely NOT! The spending is out of control. Billions here, billions there, trillions here, trillions there. If I were in charge of government, our tax rate would be half of what it is now and we would still be getting revenue. Its all about wasteful spending. The government needs to become more efficient like a private company. Private companies exist due to their economic efficiency. Minimum costs, maximum profit, maximum production. Given, the government needs to be of a larger span in operations than a private company, but the efficiency is leagues weaker.

Thing about the democratic party, you can make taxes 100% and they would still make a debt out of it.


Amen bro. I live it first hand and will attest to the wasteful spending of the government. $0.60 of every dollar spent is pretty much wasted.
March 26, 2012 3:15:56 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Nice jaydee!

#3 in the world. Hardly a drop in the bucket eh there john? I say we shoot for #1.

Still waiting on your opinion of natural gas production too john. Something tells me you won't respond though.

Why do I think this? Because I'm sure you are well aware that there is NO natural gas production unless we "DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!"

A glittering jewel. Truly, a glittering jewel.


I am all for natural gas, I agree with the statement that it could be used as a transition fuel until alternative methods are refined. Trust me, we are already increasing drilling for natural gas, but the comment drill baby drill is just to open ended, how about drill where its economically feasible and has the least impact on the environment and the people around it?

Even if we shot for #1, which is impossible considering how far behind we are, it wouldn't really help with gas prices. Its simple supply and demand, there is no way we could make up for the supply in the U.S alone to meet the ever increasing demand throughout the world. We need to get away from oil, its only going to get worse as other developing countries continue to increase the demand.
March 26, 2012 3:26:17 PM

riser said:
You are clueless on why Solar doesn't work in the US. Our electrical grid needs to be updated. The electricity can't travel as far and too much power is lost. That's why we don't have solar fields in the middle of the desert serving up energy everywhere. If we were running on a newer grid like in Europe, solar would work. It is cost prohibitive in the US to make solar work.

Why do you think companies like First Solar have a single plant in the US (testing, development, some local sales) and all their new plants are being put in areas that can utilize solar energy? Those areas have newer grids.

Nuclear is great because it produces so much energy that what we lose in transferring it over a distance isn't as significant. When you don't produce as much, yet the loss is the same, it isn't beneficial.


I'm clueless? Interesting, I was thinking the same thing about your comment. Tell me riser, what happens when there is a whiteout blizzard or it's night time and there is no wind, how do we get power? We keep the coal based power plants and other sources running idly so that they can kick on when there is no power coming in and prevent power loss. This reduces the benefits of solar and wind greatly. If we could get to a point were we could shut down the coal plants and such, then we would see incredible results.
March 26, 2012 3:58:39 PM

johnsonma said:
I'm clueless? Interesting, I was thinking the same thing about your comment. Tell me riser, what happens when there is a whiteout blizzard or it's night time and there is no wind, how do we get power? We keep the coal based power plants and other sources running idly so that they can kick on when there is no power coming in and prevent power loss. This reduces the benefits of solar and wind greatly. If we could get to a point were we could shut down the coal plants and such, then we would see incredible results.


You can't just keep a coal plant 'idle' - they either run or they don't. It takes a lot of work to kick the turbines on and get them prepared to produce electricity. If you want to step up coal produced power, you have to have it planned and ready to go. It isn't like one hour you want 50% and the next you want 75%. You either run it or you don't. The solar power can only supplement the coal; coal cannot supplement solar. Aside from that, again the 110v we run on is not efficient enough to work with solar power outside of individual buildings. Even then, most buildings still consume more power than the space required to operate. This is again because of the 110v and inefficiency of that grid compared to 220v.
March 26, 2012 6:22:12 PM

riser said:
You can't just keep a coal plant 'idle' - they either run or they don't. It takes a lot of work to kick the turbines on and get them prepared to produce electricity. If you want to step up coal produced power, you have to have it planned and ready to go. It isn't like one hour you want 50% and the next you want 75%. You either run it or you don't. The solar power can only supplement the coal; coal cannot supplement solar. Aside from that, again the 110v we run on is not efficient enough to work with solar power outside of individual buildings. Even then, most buildings still consume more power than the space required to operate. This is again because of the 110v and inefficiency of that grid compared to 220v.


You can change their output, its just less efficient. All you need to pipe solar electricity to the grid is an inverter. Still the biggest problem with solar and wind is storage and like you said, distribution. Although I think distribution will be easier to solve than storage.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_challenge_for_green_en...
March 26, 2012 6:59:17 PM

Less efficient on something that is already not as efficient... makes it even worse.

Why do we need to store the energy of something that is essentially free?
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest