Things are bad. What's the solution?

AssHatZombie said:
Your idiotic defense of the irrational status quo globalization idiocy, while blaming it on liberals, is noted.
Click to expand...

Shut up, you've proven yourself to be a Liberal Democrat TOOL in this thread. When you have pinheads 'agreeing' with you, that should be your first fucking clue, but being you're a pinhead who likes to be jizzed on by liberals, it didn't phase you a bit! Go the fuck away! LIBERAL PINHEAD!
 
Dixie said:
Shut up, you've proven yourself to be a Liberal Democrat TOOL in this thread. When you have pinheads 'agreeing' with you, that should be your first fucking clue, but being you're a pinhead who likes to be jizzed on by liberals, it didn't phase you a bit! Go the fuck away! LIBERAL PINHEAD!
Click to expand...

You're pathetic.

The government has a constitutional power to set trade policy, for good reason.

Protectionism has long been a tool to sculpt economies. No markets are truly free, you imbecile.

Only in your globalist brainwashed fantasy world of idiocy is protectionism a "liberal pinhead" policy.


The funniest thing is that you even agreed that tariffs and taxes which discourage outsourcing are a good idea. THOSE ARE PROTECTIONISM, you belligerent oaf.

It's hilarous how moronic you are.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
You're pathetic.

The government has a constitutional power to set trade policy, for good reason.

Protectionism has long been a tool to sculpt economies. No markets are truly free, you imbecile.

Only in your globalist brainwashed fantasy world of idiocy is protectionism a "liberal pinhead" policy.


The funniest thing is that you even agreed that tariffs and taxes which discourage outsourcing are a good idea. THOSE ARE PROTECTIONISM, you belligerent oaf.

It's hilarous how moronic you are.
Click to expand...

But what you want is NOT "protectionism" at all... you want to abolish trade alliances completely, stop doing business with them entirely. I never agreed that tariffs and taxes were "a good idea" and I challenged you to show me where I said that, but you couldn't. So now you're just going to be a bullhead and claim I said it anyway? What I stated was, tariffs and taxes can be used to incentivize or deincentivize outsourcing. It depends on the circumstances as to whether or not I would personally support it or "like" it. I'll tell you this, I am much more inclined to support and "like" reducing taxes to give incentives to businesses who keep their manufacturing jobs at home. That's something we could do, and it would work well. It's when you start jumping on business to "punish" them, that I get a little uncomfortable.

It doesn't matter how much you try to punish an American corporation for making profits, it won't change the human conditions in China! You can do what you suggest and stop trading with them, but Russia will still trade with them, and not a damn thing will change, except that we'll pay more money for our American-made shit, because of labor unions and health care costs! Not to mention pissing off people who own half our goddamn country right now! You don't think your stupid shit through, just like a liberal pinhead... you haven't given one iota of thought as to the possible ramifications of what you are advocating, it's just a knee-jerk emotive bleat, like a typical left-winger.
 
Dixie said:
But what you want is NOT "protectionism" at all... you want to abolish trade alliances completely, stop doing business with them entirely. I never agreed that tariffs and taxes were "a good idea" and I challenged you to show me where I said that, but you couldn't.
Click to expand...
Having no trade relationship at all is most protective and is therefore a form of protectionism.

So you claim you were outlining a more moderate plan, which i should believe, but which you also don't agree with? LOL. Highly unlikely. You then began backpedalling, claiming you didn't agree with tariffs in all situations, and then you wouldn't answer if you believe in tariffs in our particular situation.


So now you're just going to be a bullhead and claim I said it anyway? What I stated was, tariffs and taxes can be used to incentivize or deincentivize outsourcing. It depends on the circumstances as to whether or not I would personally support it or "like" it. I'll tell you this, I am much more inclined to support and "like" reducing taxes to give incentives to businesses who keep their manufacturing jobs at home. That's something we could do, and it would work well. It's when you start jumping on business to "punish" them, that I get a little uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
You were all for it. Until i showed you how you actually are a protectionist.
Now you claim you were just giving a lecure on what protectionism is? LOL. NOT. Stop lying.
It doesn't matter how much you try to punish an American corporation for making profits, it won't change the human conditions in China! You can do what you suggest and stop trading with them, but Russia will still trade with them, and not a damn thing will change, except that we'll pay more money for our American-made shit, because of labor unions and health care costs! Not to mention pissing off people who own half our goddamn country right now! You don't think your stupid shit through, just like a liberal pinhead... you haven't given one iota of thought as to the possible ramifications of what you are advocating, it's just a knee-jerk emotive bleat, like a typical left-winger.
Click to expand...

Our policies should consider the impact on american lives first, not the chinese. That's why our government is called the American Government.
This is why your globalization zealotry makes you a treasonous bastard.

And besdes, we really do incentivize their tyranny with our cash. We should stop immediately. WE don't have to do what russia does. Why do you want to be like russia? I guess you're the lefty.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Having no trade relationship at all is most protective and is therefore a form of protectionism.
Click to expand...

Not really. What you are advocating is "isolationism" and we tried it once before, it didn't work. We did okay, but that was back when we actually produced stuff, the problem was the rest of the world fell apart, and collapsed into a world war. I doubt we could ever be isolationists again, because we don't produce anything! We would either have to do without a lot of luxuries we enjoy, or we'd have to pay considerably more for them. Then, what happens when the rest of the world falls apart again? We can't survive if they start hurling nukes at each other!

So you claim you were outlining a more moderate plan, which i should believe, but which you also don't agree with? LOL. Highly unlikely. You then began backpedalling, claiming you didn't agree with tariffs in all situations, and then you wouldn't answer if you believe in tariffs in our particular situation.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't backpedaled, you misunderstood something I said and I corrected you, I had to stop you a second time, and correct you again, and apparently, this is the THIRD time I have had to correct you. We don't have a "particular situation" here, we have thousands of things that we import and some we export. We have some things which have tariffs, and some that don't. Some tariffs are higher than others, there is no "particular situation" in that regard, it varies widely, as it should. It doesn't matter if I "believe in" tariffs, they certainly DO exist, and we impose them everyday!

You were all for it. Until i showed you how you actually are a protectionist.
Now you claim you were just giving a lecure on what protectionism is? LOL. NOT. Stop lying.
Click to expand...

Again, I wasn't "all for it" in what I stated, you couldn't show where I said that. I made a statement you misunderstood, and for the FOURTH time, I am having to correct you on it! I wasn't giving a lecture on anything, I didn't claim to be. You are the one who is lying here, not me. Perhaps you need to go back and re-read what I posted?

Our policies should consider the impact on american lives first, not the chinese. That's why our government is called the American Government.
This is why your globalization zealotry makes you a treasonous bastard.
Click to expand...

Well, okay, the impact on American lives to stop importing Chinese goods, is to dramatically increase the cost of a variety of products Americans buy and use daily. And that is 'best case scenario' because many things we import from China, are simply not able to be produced here, so Americans would have to do without in those cases, doesn't matter the cost. What kind of impact would that be? You want a list of things we import from China?

And besdes, we really do incentivize their tyranny with our cash. We should stop immediately. WE don't have to do what russia does. Why do you want to be like russia? I guess you're the lefty.
Click to expand...

No we don't. They were tyrannical before we ever imported the first thing from them. Our cash doesn't give them the incentive to do what they were already doing before our cash came along! That is just plain ignorance of history. If anything, our trade dollars are an incentive for them to clean up their act. We can use our trade dollars to leverage a change.

I said nothing about doing what Russia does. I said that if we didn't trade with China, it wouldn't cause them to change, they would just trade with Russia and keep on keeping on. I'm not the one who leftist liberals are agreeing with here, YOU ARE!
 
Dixie said:
Green energy is also more expensive and cost prohibitive at this time. Not something you want to mandate on the people during an economic recession, we need jobs, not mandates from The One on what kind of energy we can use. Sorry! The American people are going to categorically reject you big time in a few weeks, because you are all idiots. Maybe then, we can return to some civility and actually DISCUSS these things, for now, your liberal pinheads are still in the clouds with your pie-in-the-sky notions.
Click to expand...

In Roman law, mandate meant: an order or decree by the emperor or king.

Here's your acronym for the day Dixie: OPEC

OPEC: The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a cartel of twelve countries made up of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

Here's your daddys Dix...

1911B_OPEC_wideweb__470x299,0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Green energy is also more expensive and cost prohibitive at this time. Not something you want to mandate on the people during an economic recession, we need jobs, not mandates from The One on what kind of energy we can use. Sorry! The American people are going to categorically reject you big time in a few weeks, because you are all idiots. Maybe then, we can return to some civility and actually DISCUSS these things, for now, your liberal pinheads are still in the clouds with your pie-in-the-sky notions.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at a 1.5KW solar system for my cabin in the mountains. It will cost about $12k. The feds will pay 30%, the state 40 to 50%, and the TVA will buy back the excess power at $0.12 above what I pay for it. Three dumb agencies, but I'd be dumb not to take advantage of them.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I'm looking at a 1.5KW solar system for my cabin in the mountains. It will cost about $12k. The feds will pay 30%, the state 40 to 50%, and the TVA will buy back the excess power at $0.12 above what I pay for it. Three dumb agencies, but I'd be dumb not to take advantage of them.
Click to expand...

And welfare recipients would be stupid not to bilk the system as much as they can...

You're part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Damn Yankee said:
I'm looking at a 1.5KW solar system for my cabin in the mountains. It will cost about $12k. The feds will pay 30%, the state 40 to 50%, and the TVA will buy back the excess power at $0.12 above what I pay for it. Three dumb agencies, but I'd be dumb not to take advantage of them.
Click to expand...
That's fine for you, but the fact that such systems must be subsidized in order to make them cost effect is why green energy of this type is not viable as a wide-spread alternate energy source. Wind has the same problems: costly to install, costly to integrate into the current infrastructure, and not reliable since wind and light are not constants. We are in a recession. regardless of the long term benefits of wind and solar power, they are too costly. We cannot afford to reinvent our energy infrastructure; especially at a time when spending massive amounts of money we do not have is a considerable factor in the economic conditions we face.

There are alternative energy sources which do not require heavy investment in new infrastructure. Every boiler-type electrical generation plant has the ability to use renewable fuels without the need for significant alterations. In the state of Washington they have converted several power plants to burn waste wood from their lumber industry. We should be converting all of our plants in that manner - not necessarily all to wood, but to renewable fuels of some type. All it would take is new burners and, possibly, new fuel facilities. The rest of the infrastructure can stay in place, saving trillions of dollars over trying to switch a large portion of our electrical production to wind or solar. We could even do the same to steam plants that heat large buildings, or even fuel oil boilers that heat private homes. We should convert fuel oil heating plants to ethanol or other renewable fuel, saving billions of barrels of oil a year. Subsidizing this kind of switch-over would produce far better results far faster - and far cheaper - than heavy investments in (currently) inefficient and costly alternatives. We can and should continue research into making solar and other sources more efficient and affordable - but not continue to subsidize the use of such sources in their current economically inefficient status.

The idea of shifting to alternate energy sources should concentrate on those sources which will not require significant changes in our current infrastructure. Rebuilding our infrastructure is not only too expensive, but also would take much, much longer to implement.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
That's fine for you, but the fact that such systems must be subsidized in order to make them cost effect is why green energy of this type is not viable as a wide-spread alternate energy source. Wind has the same problems: costly to install, costly to integrate into the current infrastructure, and not reliable since wind and light are not constants. We are in a recession. regardless of the long term benefits of wind and solar power, they are too costly. We cannot afford to reinvent our energy infrastructure; especially at a time when spending massive amounts of money we do not have is a considerable factor in the economic conditions we face.

There are alternative energy sources which do not require heavy investment in new infrastructure. Every boiler-type electrical generation plant has the ability to use renewable fuels without the need for significant alterations. In the state of Washington they have converted several power plants to burn waste wood from their lumber industry. We should be converting all of our plants in that manner - not necessarily all to wood, but to renewable fuels of some type. All it would take is new burners and, possibly, new fuel facilities. The rest of the infrastructure can stay in place, saving trillions of dollars over trying to switch a large portion of our electrical production to wind or solar. We could even do the same to steam plants that heat large buildings, or even fuel oil boilers that heat private homes. We should convert fuel oil heating plants to ethanol or other renewable fuel, saving billions of barrels of oil a year. Subsidizing this kind of switch-over would produce far better results far faster - and far cheaper - than heavy investments in (currently) inefficient and costly alternatives. We can and should continue research into making solar and other sources more efficient and affordable - but not continue to subsidize the use of such sources in their current economically inefficient status.

The idea of shifting to alternate energy sources should concentrate on those sources which will not require significant changes in our current infrastructure. Rebuilding our infrastructure is not only too expensive, but also would take much, much longer to implement.
Click to expand...

I've paid enough in taxes over my lifetime that I don't feel guilty at all about exploiting foolish government programs. So I'll look into this solar deal; right now the payback looks very lucrative. You bring up some good points though:

1. It doesn't matter that solar is not 24/7/365. Using net metering when the sun is out and I'm not there the special meter basically spins backwards, and instead of getting a bill I get a check. That electricity flows into the grid allowing an oil or coal fired plant to run a little less.
2. I've considered a small wind turbine- the site is ideal for a vertical axis turbine- but TVA doesn't pay as well for that. Plus it would take up space on the property that I could otherwise use for trees. Plus the neighbors might not like the looks of it. Then there's the maintenance and noise issues.
3. I heat the place with #2 fuel oil: dyed diesel fuel. I can substitute biodiesel simply by pouring it in the tank, and I would if it was convenient and less expensive. I've searched for a supplier but none is nearby or on my usual travel route.
4. Anyone who has not been using wood waste that would otherwise be landfilled would have to be retarded. That's a no-brainer.
5. Ethanol is a terrible fuel. Right now most of it is made from corn, subsidized, and it takes nearly as much petroleum based fertilizer and energy than gets returned as a fuel. Plus it absorbs water so can't be handled along with gasoline and other fuels. The pressure on corn production has risen the cost of corn feed, hence prices of meat products across the board. Someday we may be able to produce it from wood waste but that in itself is dumb because it is easier and more efficient just to burn the wood waste and make electricity.
6. Point-of-use generation makes even more sense considering the fact that power generated at a long distance off site can have up to 30% losses just gong over transmission lines and multiple transformers.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's because you're fine with handouts for yourself, but want to judge others who use handouts to get food.

its called hypocrisy. It's an easy trap to fall into.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Think about it; in spite of the fact that I would enjoy pissing you off by being a hypocrite. The incentives from the feds and state are in the form of tax incentives, so that is money that they would not otherwise receive from me. This actually helps me meet my ultra-conservative political goal of denying government tax revenues. :clink:
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, no. Think about it; in spite of the fact that I would enjoy pissing you off by being a hypocrite. The incentives from the feds and state are in the form of tax incentives, so that is money that they would not otherwise receive from me. This actually helps me meet my ultra-conservative political goal of denying government tax revenues. :clink:
Click to expand...

So when the poor dont pay taxes, and take from the system, you should be happy that the state is even further deprived.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So when the poor dont pay taxes, and take from the system, you should be happy that the state is even further deprived.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I think the only fair tax plan is one that requires everyone to pay the same percentage; in this case of income taxes, taxes on the money that we earn. Since I've paid much more than my fair share I'm owed back exactly that portion. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
I've paid enough in taxes over my lifetime that I don't feel guilty at all about exploiting foolish government programs. So I'll look into this solar deal; right now the payback looks very lucrative. You bring up some good points though:
Click to expand...
I wasn't denigrating your use of the programs. I was stating that the fact those programs are needed to make solar affordable means it is not an economically viable, wide-use alternative source of electricity.

Damn Yankee said:
1. It doesn't matter that solar is not 24/7/365. Using net metering when the sun is out and I'm not there the special meter basically spins backwards, and instead of getting a bill I get a check. That electricity flows into the grid allowing an oil or coal fired plant to run a little less.
Click to expand...
But that is your personal situation. Unfortunately the grid does not have the ability to simply shut down when the sun goes down. And yes, every little bit helps, but I am not talking about personal advantages, I am talking about the BEST way to spend our tax dollars on shifting our energy economy to alternate sources. Solar and wind are NOT efficient means of spending our tax dollars for that purpose.

Damn Yankee said:
2. I've considered a small wind turbine- the site is ideal for a vertical axis turbine- but TVA doesn't pay as well for that. Plus it would take up space on the property that I could otherwise use for trees. Plus the neighbors might not like the looks of it. Then there's the maintenance and noise issues.
Click to expand...
Wind has all kinds of problems. I seem to recall a certasin former U.S. Senator and his family being significant opposition to the idea of a large, offshore wind farm in the general vicinity of said former Senator's home state.

Damn Yankee said:
3. I heat the place with #2 fuel oil: dyed diesel fuel. I can substitute biodiesel simply by pouring it in the tank, and I would if it was convenient and less expensive. I've searched for a supplier but none is nearby or on my usual travel route.
Click to expand...
Now this is an area that government could have a significant positive influence with minimal investment by using tax breaks and some subsidies to encourage the spread of bio diesel (or other biofuel) outlets and distributors.

Damn Yankee said:
4. Anyone who has not been using wood waste that would otherwise be landfilled would have to be retarded. That's a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
And how about waste PAPER? Or other burnable waste we generate in hundred ton lots daily? The types of scrubbers used by coal plants could easily handle any contaminates.

Damn Yankee said:
5. Ethanol is a terrible fuel. Right now most of it is made from corn, subsidized, and it takes nearly as much petroleum based fertilizer and energy than gets returned as a fuel. Plus it absorbs water so can't be handled along with gasoline and other fuels. The pressure on corn production has risen the cost of corn feed, hence prices of meat products across the board. Someday we may be able to produce it from wood waste but that in itself is dumb because it is easier and more efficient just to burn the wood waste and make electricity.
Click to expand...
Ethanol and methanol are good fuels. It was the assinine decision to use corn as biomass that is stupid. (Perhaps the subsidy of corn ethanol was DESIGNED to fail?) Currently research is looking at algae as biomass, plus there is always cellulosic ethanol from sources like switch grass. And turning waste wood into methanol is not quite as dumb as you make it out to be. The energy release represented by 100 tons of waste wood can be achieved by less than 40 tons of methanol. When talking transportation costs, energy density of a fuel is an important factor. (places like Nebraska or Kansas aren't exactly known for their huge forests and woods industries) While alcohols have their problems, they also have their advantages, including being far cleaner burning than petroleum fuels, as well as renewable. Just get off the idea we have to use food as biomass.

Damn Yankee said:
6. Point-of-use generation makes even more sense considering the fact that power generated at a long distance off site can have up to 30% losses just gong over transmission lines and multiple transformers.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I have to disagree there. The relative costs of operating a large multi-megawatt facility more than compensates for transmission losses when compared to the costs of operating and maintaining a couple thousand kilowatt-range point-of-use generators. If this were not the case, energy companies would be building small stations all over rather than concentrating on larger facilities. Again, we need to look at economic efficiency as well as energy efficiency.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top