I first saw this over at GeeeeeZ
It really is an example of how poorly our government does EVERYTHING!
Why you liberal/progressives trust them with a single dollar is beyond me.
And they SURE can't handle these millions.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
Joe - I cannot even wrap my mind around this.
Who and where is the person that will step up and put a stop to such ludicrous nonsense?
This has to be one of the most inane and insane wastes of tax dollars I have seen. GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!! Where is anyone with intelligence and common sense who will say, "Screw the law - stop the presses!"
Actually, you'd have to get rid of the Treasury Dept.
Ducky - I have reached the conclusion that you cannot have a rational comversation with people who wear their stupidity like it's a badge of honor.
People who cloak themselves in wilful ignorance and use it as a shield to protect them from the truth are not worth the effort it takes to try to engage them.
Spending time on sites like this is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time and it annoys the pig.
XO: I am SO concerned about your opinions.
On the other hand, if anyone had ever tried to teach you to sing, you would be quite anoyed.
I've got to agree, Joe. What a waste. I'm surprised it passed the Republican controlled senate by unanimous consent and the Republican House 291-113. I can't believe Pres. Bush would sign such a bill.
Imagine the uproar if they actually stopped production before the Gipper coin is minted. Liberal plot!
This has to be one of the most inane and insane wastes of tax dollars I have seen.
It ranks right up there with airlifting billions of dollars in paper money on pallets to Iraq, then losing it.
It really is an example of how poorly our government does EVERYTHING!
EVERYTHING, Joe? Have you ever failed to get your SS check? SS admin cost is 0.6%. I'm sure your bank can match that. Try taking your next RV trip to Branson without using the Interstate Highway System, or any paved road. It was the govt, DARPA, that gives you the ability to post your anti-govt drivel on the internet.
I love the way people are so quick to credit the government for the things it does like SS,road,clean water,air,etc that it gets a free pass for wasting billions of dollars. But they have an endless amount of other people's money so what do you expect.
Like the saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I love the way people are so quick to credit the government for the things it does like SS,road,clean water,air,etc that it gets a free pass for wasting billions of dollars.
Lisa, I don't give them a free pass. There are some things that only govt. can do and they do some of them very well. Joe takes the example of something done poorly and draws the knee jerk conclusion that govt. does EVERYTHING poorly.
If you are really outraged by wasted billions, check out this study from the Project on Government Oversight. Another Righty myth shattered.
Service contract award dollars have dramatically increased in recent years based on the assumption that shifting work to the private sector saves taxpayer dollars...POGO’s study shows that the federal government approves service contract billing rates that, on average, pay contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees in total compensation, and more than 2 times the full compensation paid in the private sector for comparable services. Given that one-quarter of all discretionary spending now goes to service contractors, a reassessment of the total federal work force, with a focus on contractor billing rates, could save taxpayers billions of dollars annually.
But they have an endless amount of other people's money so what do you expect.
I expect them to quit shoveling it to the Oligarchs.
Well, what you are seeing, Xavier, is a documented fringe right quality.
When their beliefs are shaken they don't adjust those beliefs but they dig in and hold on to the nonsense tighter.
It's really a nasty little syndrome.
Lisa, they are not given a free pass.
There is plenty of criticism.
You have the government confused with Goldman Sachs.
This has to be one of the most inane and insane wastes of tax dollars I have seen.
It ranks right up there with airlifting billions of dollars in paper money on pallets to Iraq, then losing it.
--------
Ba-da-bing
Ducky - I have reached the conclusion that you cannot have a rational comversation with people who wear their stupidity like it's a badge of honor.
XO, I still waiting.....what are obscene profits?
Scotty - Obscene profits are rich people getting richer off the backs of poor people who are dying.
I explained this. Not paying attention or just too dense to comprehend?
If you are dying, and I have the power to save you, but refuse to save you unless you give me everything you have so I can get more of what I have...that's obscene. And immoral.
Scotty - Obscene profits are rich people getting richer off the backs of poor people who are dying.
That's just another straw man, XO
I explained this. Not paying attention or just too dense to comprehend?
Nope, the issue is, you don’t want to answer my question.
If you are dying, and I have the power to save you, but refuse to save you unless you give me everything you have so I can get more of what I have...that's obscene. And immoral.
Another straw man.
To take it back, YOU complained about companies making obscene profits.
At what point does profit become obscene. You seem to have all that answers, OX and as you point out, all the rest of us are not rational and we wear our stupidity as a badge of honor.
My question has been simple, at what point does profit become obscene?
Scotty - It's like I'm arguing with a retarded rock.
Profits become obscene when they are obtained immorally.
It's a simple concept.
What about that do you not understand?
Were you looking for some sort of dollar threshold? Did you think it was a math problem?
XO: "Profits become obscene when they are obtained immorally."
And who gets to define "immorally," you or me?
Liberals never andswer questions directly. They ALWAYS use deflection and relativity.
They do this because: 1) they don't know the answers; 2) they, themselves, are immoral and 3) they worship the god of arrogance.
eScotty - I'll be sure to add "straw man" to my arsenal of witty retorts.
Anytime someone presents an intelligent response that I am unequipped to answer rationally, I'll just call it a "straw man" and move on as though I had actually made a point.
Were you looking for some sort of dollar threshold? Did you think it was a math problem?
When this first started it appeared as that is what you were hinting at. I'm just trying to narrow it down.
You have often left the impression that taxing profit makers would make some type of difference.
You then decided to try and make it a moral issue with your straw man points.
SO, I've got another question.
Profits become obscene when they are obtained immorally.
Tell me who these folks are, who do YOU think are profiting immorally, to use your words. Not some straw man that you're great at using as an example....let's be specific here.
Joe - "And who gets to define "immorally," you or me?"
I'll let you define it.
If I find you bleeding to death on the sidewalk, and I have the power, skill and knowledge to save your life, but I refuse to do so unless you agree to give me everything you own, even though I am fabulously wealthy and have no need of your posessions, am I acting morally?
Is that what Jesus would do?
Simple question Joe.
If a rich man would rather see you suffer and die unless you could make him richer, is he behaving morally? Is he a moral man?
Same question to you Scotty.
How do I always manage to get the last word?
Craig..it was a Democrat who sponsored this bill.... Oh, you missed that? :-)
And no, Conservatives put their country first; if the Gipper doesn't get a coin, it's okay as long as the country does better because it's missing; and the Gipper's not an Obama....he didn't need the huge adulation that seems to be oxygen to YOUR SPECIAL ONE.
Joe, I forgot....thanks very much for the link.
Craig..it was a Democrat who sponsored this bill.... Oh, you missed that? :-)
Z, Are you referring to Jack Reed? He was a co-sponsor. I know you hate my little lessons, but this is how it works.
Read to the tune "Schoolhouse Rock".
A Senator writes a bill (actually their staff writes it, or a lobbyist in the case of Republicans). This bill was introduced by Harry Reid and John Ensign (R). Then they try to get other Senators to sign on as co-sponsors. This bill had several from both parties, Reed was one. Then, the bill is brought to the floor with the consent of the Majority Leader, Bill Frist(R). John Sununu(R) brought the bill to the floor.
Gipper's not an Obama....he didn't need the huge adulation that seems to be oxygen to YOUR SPECIAL ONE.
Well, there yo go again. Never mind your statement is subjective and meaningless, in case you haven't noticed, a lot of us Lefties aren't real happy with Obama's corporatist tendencies. I don't genuflect to him the way Republicans do to double R.
And no, Conservatives put their country first;
I'd believe that if "their country" is China or the Philippines. Conservatives put the top quintile first.
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
* 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
* 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
* Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
* 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
30 years of tax cuts. If we just give the job creators a little more, they might create some jobs. In the U.S. Don't count on it.
Saint Ronnie Raygun didn't need the huge adulation?
Thanks for the news from the planet Mongo, z.
If I find you bleeding to death on the sidewalk, and I have the power, skill and knowledge to save your life, but I refuse to do so unless you agree to give me everything you own, even though I am fabulously wealthy and have no need of your posessions, am I acting morally?
Is that what Jesus would do?
Obviously, you don't know what a straw man argument is, XO.
Let me help you and explain it to you.
A straw man argument is when some one makes up a scenario, like you did above, and then argues against it. Especially when the argument isn't based in some reality.
I asked you to be specific. Who's making obscene profits off the backs of other people.
Another simple question that you, as usual, would rather try and deflect rather than answer.
Scotty - It's not a straw man. It's a parable. The man bleeding on the sidewalk represents American citizens in need of health care. The man who refuses to help without being paid with everything the patient owns represents the medical and pharmaceutical industrial complex.
It's a simple question.
Are the actions of the man who refuses to help without taking everything the patient has the actions of a just and moral person?
Yes or no, Scotty?
Are the actions of the man who refuses to help without taking everything the patient has the actions of a just and moral person?
Yes or no, Scotty?
OK, it's a parable, XO.
When you answer the question I asked you first, who is making obscene profits off the back of others, I may answer yours.
Come on, name names here....
Service contract award dollars have dramatically increased in recent years based on the assumption that shifting work to the private sector saves taxpayer dollars...POGO’s study shows that the federal government approves service contract billing rates that, on average, pay contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees in total compensation
Hmm I guess you must mean people connected to government Craig? Still want to blame the private sector?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/crony-socialism-nancy-pelosis-brother-in-law-gets-737-million-loan-from-obama/
Honestly. There used to be a time when being a Patriot meant you love this country and want it to succeed. There used to be a time where going against the President meant you don’t want America to succeed. Hell, there even used to be a time when Americans ONLY hated a President because of his policies…. Not Anymore.
The racist right wants to talk about how much we overuse the word “racist”? let’s talk about how the desiccated the word “Patriot”!
That word used to mean something! It used to mean any American who loves this country. Any man, women and child who’d jump at the chance to serve their country. “Patriot” used to describe anyone who love America. Today that word and it’s meaning has been twisted to anyone who hates the Current President of the United States, Barack Obama.
Just Yesterday, I’ve read enough online racist rants to prove this to be true.
I think the question should be: Is anyone truly that retarded and ignorant to think the President hates his own country?
Barack Obama isn’t a great president at all.
Also many here claim Obama has divided America,America has been divided since its inception,so don’t try to blame Obama for that.
America was Racist and divided from the beginning, and is still that way in many ways,and mainly because of the sector of Americans that calls themselves conservatives and the “REAL AMERICANS”,who are really White Nationalist, yet they blame HIM for the national divide.
Of course he loves America just like most blacks do,but unfortunately too many conservatives have never seen,and accepted black people as REAL AMERICANS,so being that Obama father is African,it is even more unlikely that he will ever been seen as a “REAL AMERICAN” by these forces.
This isn’t good for the GOP. Eventually more and more people are going to discover that Obama isn’t an inflexible, Marxist, anti-business pol bent on destroying business.
They’re going to ask why the GOP is incapable of compromising like the president. Also, I don’t think it’s really fair to call this and similar pieces of legislation “jobs bills.” These aren’t sweeping pieces of legislation designed to impact a broad swath of workers and consumers. Most, like this one, are small/one-off bills designed to benefit a particular niche industry.
Some of the hate-filled rants of the right are constantly being praised as Patriotism by their fellow peers. They say we are the hate-filled race obsessed whiners, they say I’M a racist! and that is pathetic and sad! Speaking of whic
When you answer the question I asked you first, who is making obscene profits off the back of others, I may answer yours.
-----------------
Well let's keep it contemporary.
Remember Enron? Now hold that thought and work forward.
Well let's keep it contemporary.
Remember Enron? Now hold that thought and work forward.
Keep current, ducky. Eron is old news as they declared bankruptcy in 2001 when their faulty accounting caught up with them, kinda like Solendra, which would be more current news.
The Eron cry died YEARS ago!
I think Anon forget what post he/she was commenting on.
Just to keep things current, ducky. Here are the two points that XO made that started this whole conversation.
XO
Scotty - The Health Care and Pharmeceutical industries are perfect examples of Obscene Profits.
Meanwhile, the doctor who can't treat you until you can make a down payment and commit to a treatment plan has multiple McMansions and boats at the lake.
No Scotty, don't weasel. XO specifically said "industries" not your family doctor.
The pharmaceutical cons us into a Medicare drug program that marginalizes cheaper alternatives and to make things worse the Congress passes an initial bill that keeps the cost off the books.
One of the reasons the deficit has exploded but I doubt the right is aware of the issue.
No Scotty, don't weasel. XO specifically said "industries" not your family doctor.
I simply copied and pasted, ducky.
Hmm I guess you must mean people connected to government Craig? Still want to blame the private sector?
Lisa, No. My point is, the private sector isn't necessarily more efficient than the public. The study I referenced looked at govt. services like accounting, maintenance, security, etc., that used to be done 'in house' by Federal employees. Conservatives, wanting to cut the size of govt., have been outsourcing these jobs to private contractors. It ends up costing more to outsource. Govt.= bad, private=good isn't always the case. I agree, govt. wastes money. It doesn't mean all govt. spending is a waste.
Your links have nothing to do with the subject. If you want to talk about 'crony capitalism, let's go.
Here's a list of 62 Republicans who solicited the DOE for guaranteed loans like the one given Solyndra. Many of them for campaign contributors. These are the same Repubs who are now crying about picking winners and losers.
Solyndra is the only Co. to date that has defaulted and accounts for 1.3% of total clean energy program. A program created by Republicans. Since WWII, 1% of the fed. discretionary budget has gone to subsidize nuclear energy, 0.5% to oil. We are currently subsidizing clean energy at 0.1%.
So, Nancy P.'s brother in law works for a co. that invested in the solar power plant. Scandalous. Dick Cheney gives the co. he was CEO of and was still collecting checks from, billions in no-bid contracts. No big deal.
Wd. Ver. elite. Yeah, baby.
Craig: There is no such thing as "clean" or "green" energy. It is a figment of your utopian imaginaiton.
Windmills are as harmful to the environment as any oil well ever was, because they displace whole areas of wild life. Plus they mar the landscape.
Want a field in your back yard? Ted Kennedy didn't.
Fields of solar panels are as ugly as home made sin and twice as ineffecient.
Underground air conditioning is so expensive that it is prohibitive.
Batteries are a sorry excuse for power because they are heavy, compared to their output, they are made with polutants, they don't last long, and the power to charge them comes from "poluting" power companies.
The long term answer is hydorgen, but it is a long way from being able to be produced economically.
For now, and the next 30+ years, the only thing we have is "fossil" fuel (which, it turns out, may not come from fossils after all - according to some very promising research).
We must continue to extract, refine and use fossil fuels until hydorgen technology is developped, and stop wasting tax payer money on foolish "green" stuff.
The jobs "created" in the green energy industry cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce one tens of thousands of dollars job.
That's just plain stupid.
So what do you plan to do when the oil runs out?
Or will that coincide with the rapture?
The Chinese aren't conforming to your solar figures.
Ducky: According to multiple sources, including IOGCC and the Minerals Management Service, the Interior Department agency, we have enough oil reserves of all kinds in the US for about 200 years. World wide even longer.
That would give us time to properly develop hydrogen or whatever other resource we decide to go with.
But to use it you have to get it out.
Dems, liberals and progressives don't want to do that.
insanity at its finest!..Have a blessed weekend my friend!
I agree, govt. wastes money. It doesn't mean all govt. spending is a waste.
This argument is so old Craig. The government does some good things which gives them carte Blanche to screw us on the other end without oversight.
How can we compete globally if companies are required to pay 25.00 per hour,benefits and pensions?
Not that it is a bad thing for most but it isn't working anymore. That is again government intrusion ie Unions.
The problem we have is too many politicians making lifetime careers out of their positions,they don't work for the people anymore but themselves.
Now there is another stupid law that certain areas at the US/Mexican Border the Border Patrol agents can only go through by horseback because of some EPA Rules,meanwhile the illegals can drive through there.
Government protests us to our own detriment.
Craig: There is no such thing as "clean" or "green" energy.
You're right, Joe. It's not completely clean and actually the color green.
It is a figment of your utopian imaginaiton.
I used the term "clean" because that is the name of the Republican created loan guarantee program, The Clean Energy Program. From now on I'll use the more accurate, renewable energy.
Windmills are as harmful to the environment as any oil well ever was, because they displace whole areas of wild life. Plus they mar the landscape.
I would dispute that, but let's just say you're right. A windmill is the final product, it produces energy. It creates some noise pollution and maybe some dead birds, but that's about it. An oil rig doesn't produce any energy. It needs to be refined then burned to produce energy. It pours tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the process.
Want a field in your back yard?
My back yard is a little small, but I'd take a wind farm over and oil refinery or a coal fired power plant any day.
Ted Kennedy didn't.
Just because Republicans have perfected hypocrisy, Dems aren't immune. Maybe Ducky, being from that area, knows more about it.
The long term answer is hydorgen, but it is a long way from being able to be produced economically.
Hopefully. It will require a large investment, some from govt unless we want to be left in the dust in that industry too.
For now, and the next 30+ years, the only thing we have is "fossil" fuel
Wrong. I'm not so naive that I think we can stop burning fossil fuel anytime soon, we can greatly reduce it with solar, wind, geo-thermal, hydro, tidal and, yes, nuclear. Renewables are getting more efficient and costs are coming down.
(which, it turns out, may not come from fossils after all - according to some very promising research).
I'm somewhat familiar with the "research". Young Earth Creationist, batcrap crazy.
The jobs "created" in the green energy industry cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce one tens of thousands of dollars job.
There is an initial high cost to develop and build the infrastructure for new industry. Over the long term, renewables are much cheaper. By your reasoning, our electric grid, the highway system, Hoover dam, the Apollo project, you name it, should never have been done.
we have enough oil reserves of all kinds in the US for about 200 years. World wide even longer.
Fracking has some huge contamination risks and it takes massive amounts of water which is becoming more scarce, thanks to fossil fuel induced climate change, in some regions where shale oil is being extracted. Irony or somethin'. Ah, what the hey, drill baby, drill.
Ted Kennedy didn't.
Just because Republicans have perfected hypocrisy, Dems aren't immune. Maybe Ducky, being from that area, knows more about it.
--------
There are no regulatory roadblocks to Cape Wind. It has approval at State and Federal levels.
What has happened is that it is in the hands of a private developer who wants a long term contract to sell the energy at an exorbitant price.
He wants subsidies AND the profit.
That's meeting resistance. If the state built it and sold the energy at cost there would be some padding, yes, but nothing like what the current proposed developer is asking.
He's greasing a lot of palms in the legislature so we get the graft and the expense this way.
Ain't gonna fly. We ain't falling for it.
For once I agree with some of the liberals here.
This is absolute rubbish.
Craig: "I'm somewhat familiar with the "research". Young Earth Creationist, batcrap crazy."
This is a perfect example of how your entire arguement is based on things you think you know but really don't.
The research is Russian, not evangelical.
Dim wit.
Ducky, I'm shocked there's more to the story. Thanks.
This argument is so old Craig. The government does some good things
Not according to Joe from the post you are commenting on. It really is an example of how poorly our government does EVERYTHING! It's a shame I have to keep making this old argument.
which gives them carte Blanche to screw us on the other end without oversight.
That is why there are elections. It helps to know who's screwing you. Wake up.
How can we compete globally if companies are required to pay 25.00 per hour,benefits and pensions?
There's so much wrong with that sentence, it's hard to know where to begin. The only requirement for co.s is a minimum wage, $7.25/hr. We're supposed to compete for wages with 3rd world nations? Germany, Norway, Sweden, even Brazil have managed to keep a high wage labor force and still compete because they have sane manufacturing and trade policies.
$25/hr. - $50K a year (or equivalent when adjusted for inflation), health ins. and a pension used to be the norm. The American dream. Employers were content to make 30-40 times their average employee. Now it's 300-400 times. We had policies that protected our labor force, now we reward co.s with tax breaks for sending jobs off shore.
The Righties here always like to point out that wealth isn't static and it's not. The demonstrable fact is that the growth is concentrated at the top.
Not that it is a bad thing for most but it isn't working anymore. That is again government intrusion ie Unions.
It's not working anymore because govt. has become a wholly owned subsidiary of multi national corporations.
Co.s are not hiring because falling and stagnant wages mean people can't spend or save like they used to. We have a shortage of demand. Supply side economics and more and more tax breaks have failed.
Govt. ie unions? Govt. has been doing the bidding of business to chip away at unions since the passing of Taft-Hartley in 1947 when the private work force was 35% union. It's now 6%. Public employees unions represent about 35% of public employees and state govt.s (Republican) are trying to destroy them. A union teacher with 10 yrs. experience and a masters degree makes about $45K. They pay 10% of their income into their pension and get good, not Cadillac, health ins. They've agreed to wage freezes and furlough days. Somehow, this is destroying America. Cops and firefighters are your heroes when they take on the bad guys or run in to the WTC, union thugs when they bargain collectively.
The problem we have is too many politicians making lifetime careers out of their positions,they don't work for the people anymore but themselves.
For many of them, I agree. I would add, they work for those that pay.
This is a perfect example of how your entire arguement is based on things you think you know but really don't.
The research is Russian, not evangelical.
The Abiotic oil hypothesis dates back to the 16th century. The "promising research" was done in Russia from the 1950's-'80's. None of their research has panned out. Predictions from their hypothesis, vast pools of oil in crystalline basements since it was thought that petroleum formation started deep below the mantle from gases that reacted with certain minerals to form hydrocarbons. Still haven't found what they were looking for.
The development of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry in the 1980's enabled precise breakdowns of biomarkers and the correlation between source rock and oil reservoirs. Abiotic oil was thoroughly debunked. I see it dragged out on Creationist sites and among those that want to believe there is an endless, renewable source of oil and we can burn as much as we can with no consequences.
Dim wit.
It was dim witted of me to throw that comment out without the explanation I just gave you. You got me, Joe.
Joe, wants us to believe the balloon is green.
creationism and abiotic oil from none other than the always dependable Jerome Corsi.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47529
Craig: I did not say that I believed that fossil fuels don't really come from fossils, I said "which, it turns out, may not come from fossils after all - according to some very promising research."
Key word: "may."
Of course, focusing on one minute portion of my discourse ignores it larger point, which is we don't yet know how to make effective and viable use of these "new" technologies and need time to properly develop them.
In the mean time we had better make use of what we have or we will lose it and the ability to develop those new technologies.
Key word: "may."
As in "may not come from fossils after all ". If you'd bothered to look into at all, you "might" not have believed it "may". You'd have known the "promising research" was decades old and without merit. You "may" not have been so quick to call me a dim wit. I forgive you.
Of course, focusing on one minute portion of my discourse ignores it larger point, which is we don't yet know how to make effective and viable use of these "new" technologies and need time to properly develop them.
Sure, but if we point to one failed co., Solyndra, as some sort of scandal (It had $1B in private investment as well) and an excuse to defund R & D in the new technologies, we'll get our butts kicked in development and manufacturing.
It's here now. It's getting cheaper and more efficient all the time.
In the mean time we had better make use of what we have or we will lose it and the ability to develop those new technologies.
We are Joe, as much as ever. WSJ 8/27/ 2011.
The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and t he highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.
Oh, you thought Obama shut off the spigot?
Craig: "Oh, you thought Obama shut off the spigot?"
Now, why on earth did you feel compelled to add that little tidbit?
I never said President BO (the child president) "cut off the spigot.
What I HAVE said is we need MORE drilling...off-shore, ANWR and any place else we find oil deposits in our country that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
That would create tens of thousands of good paying jobs at the same time.
'Course I don't know what OWS might say about that.
If additional drilling will raise prices I'm sure the drilling would start immediately.
Now, the one you won't answer. Is the problem one of crude at the wellhead or refined products?
What good does more crude do without additional refining capacity
Remember, the left is here to help you live the life of the mind.
Ducky: Good point, Ducko. We need to build more refineries, too. More refineries, more jobs, more gas and an improved economy.
Post a Comment