In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
If I'm not mistaken what's being proposed here is money for research. That's quite a bit different from what's going on now - subsidizing and mandating currently inefficient technology.
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Wasting your breath claiming that other resources are "about as economically effective!" is exactly what's wrong with the green energy subsidies. Even this money goes preferentially to the favored green subsidies of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal rather than nuclear. Government wouldn't even need to give a single dollar of subsidy to oil companies, simply remove the restrictions on drilling in so much land in Alaska, and the Outer Continental Shelf, and various areas that cannot be probed for their content. Current estimates are that the US sits on oil reserves surpassing the middle east! The dependence on foreign oil is largely of political manufacture, just like the delays to the keystone oil pipeline.
If you want some examples of short-sightedness, just look to one of our best and brightest senators, Senator Elizabeth Warren
At a time when the Supreme Court prepares to take up same-sex marriage and the Republican Party determines the best approach to the issue going forward, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday showed a new high-water mark in support for the right of gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot.
The poll found 58 percent of Americans now believe marriage should be legal for same-sex couples, while just 36 percent said it should be illegal — a new high in ABC/WaPo's polling. It's the latest development of the swift and ongoing change in American attudes toward gay rights. Only a decade ago, an ABC/WaPo survey showed a majority of 55 percent opposed to gay marriage.
Monday's poll found huge majorities of Democrats (72 percent) and independents (62 percent) backing gay marriage. And while 59 percent of Republicans overall remain opposed, the poll showed a slight majority of GOP voters under the age of 50 — 52 percent — supporting same-sex nuptials. Support is staggering among young people in general, with 81 percent of 18-to-29 year olds favoring gay marriage.
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Wasting your breath claiming that other resources are "about as economically effective!" is exactly what's wrong with the green energy subsidies. Even this money goes preferentially to the favored green subsidies of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal rather than nuclear. Government wouldn't even need to give a single dollar of subsidy to oil companies, simply remove the restrictions on drilling in so much land in Alaska, and the Outer Continental Shelf, and various areas that cannot be probed for their content. Current estimates are that the US sits on oil reserves surpassing the middle east! The dependence on foreign oil is largely of political manufacture, just like the delays to the keystone oil pipeline.
If you want some examples of short-sightedness, just look to one of our best and brightest senators, Senator Elizabeth Warren http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABM0_L_5vLw
The GOP’s prescription to cure the ills that helped bring on yet another disastrous presidential cycle would revamp its presidential nominating rules in ways to benefit well-funded candidates and hamper insurgents - a move that quickly heated up the already smoldering feud between the Republican establishment and the tea party-inspired base.
Tucked in near the end of the 97-page report, formally known as The Growth and Opportunity Project, are less than four pages that amount to a political bombshell: the five-member panel urges halving the number of presidential primary debates in 2016 from 2012, creating a regional primary cluster after the traditional early states and holding primaries rather than caucuses or conventions.
Each of those steps would benefit a deep-pocketed candidate in the mold of Mitt Romney. That is, someone who doesn’t need the benefit of televised debates to get attention because he or she can afford TV ads; has the cash to air commercials and do other forms of voter contact in multiple big states at one time; and has more appeal with a broader swath of voters than the sort of ideologically-driven activists who typically attend caucuses and conventions.
The recommendations are also a nod to the party’s donor class. Several donors bluntly told RNC Chair Reince Priebus at meetings right after the election that they wanted Iowa, with its more conservative base, to have less of a role in the process.
Reaction was swift. Allies of potential 2016 hopefuls Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum, sensing a power play by the establishment-dominated panel, reacted angrily to recommendations they think are aimed at hurting candidates who do well in caucuses and conventions and need debates to get attention.
In a move that could have implications for a 2016 White House campaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed gay marriage on Monday, saying she supports it “personally, and as a matter of policy and law.”
Isn't politicians supposed to be people who happen to have representative ideologies and good capabilities so people vote for him/her, rather than playing the court game to appear like a decent human being? I feel like democracy's doing it backwards as far as the choosing of candidates.
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Wasting your breath claiming that other resources are "about as economically effective!" is exactly what's wrong with the green energy subsidies. Even this money goes preferentially to the favored green subsidies of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal rather than nuclear. Government wouldn't even need to give a single dollar of subsidy to oil companies, simply remove the restrictions on drilling in so much land in Alaska, and the Outer Continental Shelf, and various areas that cannot be probed for their content. Current estimates are that the US sits on oil reserves surpassing the middle east! The dependence on foreign oil is largely of political manufacture, just like the delays to the keystone oil pipeline.
If you want some examples of short-sightedness, just look to one of our best and brightest senators, Senator Elizabeth Warren http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABM0_L_5vLw
Not sure what you're talking about with Warren.
It may take some thought on what she's saying about the minimum wage in general and the value of productivity specifically. It isn't too far from Obama's line of, "Corporate profits skyrocket, wages/incomes have stagnated!" that he tosses out about every chance he gets. This Warren line kinda blends in to what the rest of the Democratic party has been dishing out for a while.
On March 19 2013 10:46 Incubus1993 wrote: lol gamers talking about politics, most of you aren't even old enough to vote! xD
TL isn't a Starcraft 2 forum. It began many years ago, and as such, has the luxury of having a pretty high average age. I'd imagine the average age is around 24-25, as opposed to 17-18 on most other gaming forums. As long as you stay away from the SC2 forum, you can usually enjoy some pretty mature conversation as a result of most of these people being born before 1993
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Wasting your breath claiming that other resources are "about as economically effective!" is exactly what's wrong with the green energy subsidies. Even this money goes preferentially to the favored green subsidies of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal rather than nuclear. Government wouldn't even need to give a single dollar of subsidy to oil companies, simply remove the restrictions on drilling in so much land in Alaska, and the Outer Continental Shelf, and various areas that cannot be probed for their content. Current estimates are that the US sits on oil reserves surpassing the middle east! The dependence on foreign oil is largely of political manufacture, just like the delays to the keystone oil pipeline.
If you want some examples of short-sightedness, just look to one of our best and brightest senators, Senator Elizabeth Warren http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABM0_L_5vLw
Not sure what you're talking about with Warren.
It may take some thought on what she's saying about the minimum wage in general and the value of productivity specifically. It isn't too far from Obama's line of, "Corporate profits skyrocket, wages/incomes have stagnated!" that he tosses out about every chance he gets. This Warren line kinda blends in to what the rest of the Democratic party has been dishing out for a while.
Why isn't the minimum wage $22 an hour? Let's order in a bunch of red-handed business owners to answer for this grand conspiracy!
Christina Romer actually paints a rather informative picture, and doesn't really show "how ludicrous the thought it." The closest she comes to arguing against it is by trying to paint a picture of a perfect storm of unintended consequences, where higher skilled workers looking for supplementary income crowd out lower skilled poverty stricken workers, who then have to face higher prices on bargain goods. Even then, however, she doesn't make a convincing argument that raising the minimum wage is bad.
And yes, the question surrounding $22 an hour is absurd, but it's to draw a contrast to the situation. It seems ridiculous to pay somebody $22 an hour to work a register at the grocery store, but it also seems absurd that, if wages were to grow with production, they are 1/3 of what they "should" be. There has to be room in there for a higher minimum wage and higher wages in general, but the minimum is the easiest to control.
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Wasting your breath claiming that other resources are "about as economically effective!" is exactly what's wrong with the green energy subsidies. Even this money goes preferentially to the favored green subsidies of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal rather than nuclear. Government wouldn't even need to give a single dollar of subsidy to oil companies, simply remove the restrictions on drilling in so much land in Alaska, and the Outer Continental Shelf, and various areas that cannot be probed for their content. Current estimates are that the US sits on oil reserves surpassing the middle east! The dependence on foreign oil is largely of political manufacture, just like the delays to the keystone oil pipeline.
If you want some examples of short-sightedness, just look to one of our best and brightest senators, Senator Elizabeth Warren http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABM0_L_5vLw
Not sure what you're talking about with Warren.
It may take some thought on what she's saying about the minimum wage in general and the value of productivity specifically. It isn't too far from Obama's line of, "Corporate profits skyrocket, wages/incomes have stagnated!" that he tosses out about every chance he gets. This Warren line kinda blends in to what the rest of the Democratic party has been dishing out for a while.
Why isn't the minimum wage $22 an hour? Let's order in a bunch of red-handed business owners to answer for this grand conspiracy!
Christina Romer actually paints a rather informative picture, and doesn't really show "how ludicrous the thought it." The closest she comes to arguing against it is by trying to paint a picture of a perfect storm of unintended consequences, where higher skilled workers looking for supplementary income crowd out lower skilled poverty stricken workers, who then have to face higher prices on bargain goods. Even then, however, she doesn't make a convincing argument that raising the minimum wage is bad.
And yes, the question surrounding $22 an hour is absurd, but it's to draw a contrast to the situation. It seems ridiculous to pay somebody $22 an hour to work a register at the grocery store, but it also seems absurd that, if wages were to grow with production, they are 1/3 of what they "should" be. There has to be room in there for a higher minimum wage and higher wages in general, but the minimum is the easiest to control.
An issue there would be whether or not minimum wage jobs have seen productivity increases on par with the average. I doubt, for example, restaurants (or as you say, cashiers) have seen the same productivity increases that auto manufacturers have.
On March 18 2013 07:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Source
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Wasting your breath claiming that other resources are "about as economically effective!" is exactly what's wrong with the green energy subsidies. Even this money goes preferentially to the favored green subsidies of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal rather than nuclear. Government wouldn't even need to give a single dollar of subsidy to oil companies, simply remove the restrictions on drilling in so much land in Alaska, and the Outer Continental Shelf, and various areas that cannot be probed for their content. Current estimates are that the US sits on oil reserves surpassing the middle east! The dependence on foreign oil is largely of political manufacture, just like the delays to the keystone oil pipeline.
If you want some examples of short-sightedness, just look to one of our best and brightest senators, Senator Elizabeth Warren http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABM0_L_5vLw
Not sure what you're talking about with Warren.
It may take some thought on what she's saying about the minimum wage in general and the value of productivity specifically. It isn't too far from Obama's line of, "Corporate profits skyrocket, wages/incomes have stagnated!" that he tosses out about every chance he gets. This Warren line kinda blends in to what the rest of the Democratic party has been dishing out for a while.
Why isn't the minimum wage $22 an hour? Let's order in a bunch of red-handed business owners to answer for this grand conspiracy!
Christina Romer actually paints a rather informative picture, and doesn't really show "how ludicrous the thought it." The closest she comes to arguing against it is by trying to paint a picture of a perfect storm of unintended consequences, where higher skilled workers looking for supplementary income crowd out lower skilled poverty stricken workers, who then have to face higher prices on bargain goods. Even then, however, she doesn't make a convincing argument that raising the minimum wage is bad.
And yes, the question surrounding $22 an hour is absurd, but it's to draw a contrast to the situation. It seems ridiculous to pay somebody $22 an hour to work a register at the grocery store, but it also seems absurd that, if wages were to grow with production, they are 1/3 of what they "should" be. There has to be room in there for a higher minimum wage and higher wages in general, but the minimum is the easiest to control.
An issue there would be whether or not minimum wage jobs have seen productivity increases on par with the average. I doubt, for example, restaurants (or as you say, cashiers) have seen the same productivity increases that auto manufacturers have.
Of course not. I do think the productivity-wage gap does exist at $7.25 an hour though, in almost all sectors. If it doesn't exist for a job, it's probably an issue with the employer not utilizing the skills and not the worker only being worth $7.25 an hour.
If you can go to HBO right now and watch the documentary "American Winter", seriously why is HBO doing what politicians should be bringing attention to. This is pissing me off, this is what happens to an apathetic nation.
History channel is running a miniseries called "the bible". It had a guy who looks JUST like obama playing the devil and a guy who looks JUST like Chris Christie playing king hared.
Laughed my ass off but even I found that a bit offensive.
A lot of the manufacturing jobs left in america are only there beacuse its cheaper to hire a worker for that wage then to invest in a robotic worker for the same role. If you jack minimum wage up and mess with that math the jobs will just go away even harder.
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Wasting your breath claiming that other resources are "about as economically effective!" is exactly what's wrong with the green energy subsidies. Even this money goes preferentially to the favored green subsidies of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal rather than nuclear. Government wouldn't even need to give a single dollar of subsidy to oil companies, simply remove the restrictions on drilling in so much land in Alaska, and the Outer Continental Shelf, and various areas that cannot be probed for their content. Current estimates are that the US sits on oil reserves surpassing the middle east! The dependence on foreign oil is largely of political manufacture, just like the delays to the keystone oil pipeline.
If you want some examples of short-sightedness, just look to one of our best and brightest senators, Senator Elizabeth Warren <removed>
I actually think the best thing to do would be to get rid of most green energy subsidies, all oil substitutes and tax carbon. You can offset costs to people by either lowering tax rates slightly or increasing the standard deduction or something like that. That way the government is not picking winners and losers, but the market will take into account the overall costs to society of carbon pollution. It's just like having to pay the garbage man to come every week - you pay for your waste. Nuclear waste would also need some permanent storage location (with fees for storing it) also. At this point whatever wins, wins.
As for oil drilling in Alaska and off the coast, I really see that as a "when" and not an "if". Drilling it now feels like raiding your retirement accounts to pay for a new car. Better to have it there when oil as a backup and is actually expensive instead of only $100 a barrel. It's not like drilling there would even lower the market cost much at all since fracking takes about $80 per barrel of oil. Best case we don't need it and worst case we get to use it in world war 3 or something.
Lastly I would agree that dependance on foreign oil is 100% political. It really doesn't matter where we get our oil. It's not like a 1970's style embargo would really work since most oil states depend on the money so much now. Most of them would collapse if they tried that.
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
That is quite frankly regressive thinking when it comes to innovation. Investing in new technology will seldom give a surplus in the short term while it will be huge in the longer term. Subsidizing oil is a bottomless hole since the oil will be more and more expensive to harvest because of depletion of the easily available reservoirs. If you like small government, subsidizing oil is anti-thetical, if you like the environment it is shortsighted and dangerous, if you like growth it is very shortsighted at best. There are plenty of other things we need oil for in the future. Wasting it as fuels and energy production is plain stupid when other resources are about as economically effective!
Wasting your breath claiming that other resources are "about as economically effective!" is exactly what's wrong with the green energy subsidies. Even this money goes preferentially to the favored green subsidies of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal rather than nuclear. Government wouldn't even need to give a single dollar of subsidy to oil companies, simply remove the restrictions on drilling in so much land in Alaska, and the Outer Continental Shelf, and various areas that cannot be probed for their content. Current estimates are that the US sits on oil reserves surpassing the middle east! The dependence on foreign oil is largely of political manufacture, just like the delays to the keystone oil pipeline.
If you want some examples of short-sightedness, just look to one of our best and brightest senators, Senator Elizabeth Warren <removed>
I actually think the best thing to do would be to get rid of most green energy subsidies, all oil substitutes and tax carbon. You can offset costs to people by either lowering tax rates slightly or increasing the standard deduction or something like that. That way the government is not picking winners and losers, but the market will take into account the overall costs to society of carbon pollution. It's just like having to pay the garbage man to come every week - you pay for your waste. Nuclear waste would also need some permanent storage location (with fees for storing it) also. At this point whatever wins, wins.
As for oil drilling in Alaska and off the coast, I really see that as a "when" and not an "if". Drilling it now feels like raiding your retirement accounts to pay for a new car. Better to have it there when oil as a backup and is actually expensive instead of only $100 a barrel. It's not like drilling there would even lower the market cost much at all since fracking takes about $80 per barrel of oil. Best case we don't need it and worst case we get to use it in world war 3 or something.
Lastly I would agree that dependance on foreign oil is 100% political. It really doesn't matter where we get our oil. It's not like a 1970's style embargo would really work since most oil states depend on the money so much now. Most of them would collapse if they tried that.
If they eliminated corporate tax rates, the dividend tax, and made the income tax less progressive, I could see a carbon tax helping. Actually, add a massive regulation overall opening more federal lands to development. I could get behind that.
However, the market would still not take into account the overall costs to society of carbon pollution. They are relatively low. What's at issue here is the perceived costs in the future. The carbon tax or cap-and-trade systems are a response to a societal sense that carbon will have negative environmental effects sometime in the semi-distant future. So if you're going to do something of the kind, it would best be done not in addition to the current taxes on small and big business, but as a re-imagining of current taxes.
Our reserves are so extensive, you'd be hard pressed to run out of domestic reserves before Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran pump themselves dry. It's not raiding the retirement any more than granny worrying that her denture cream purchases will wipe out her IRA & SS. The regulatory and political restrictions on oil exploration and drilling are big players in the current price of gas today.
On March 18 2013 20:56 Adila wrote: Please define what "Christian" morality actually is. I've seen that used to justify slavery, segregation, etc. in the USA's past.
and it was primarily Christian opposition to such things that ended them.
On March 19 2013 17:01 tadL wrote: Ofc I am a foreigner so I am not 100% into US Politics. Why just not a simple Church Tax?
what good would that do? oh and the reason it wouldn't work anyway is that Christian opposition would be really fierce, and it's a good chance that it would be political suicide for whoever tried to implement it.
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research
President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks.
Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil.
This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on.
it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields?
$2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that?
Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg.
Every piece of technology starts of as inferior (whether its because of cost or implementation), that kind of thinking is not really the best way to approach innovation IMO.
where in God's name did you get the idea that every piece of technology starts off as inferior? so the axle was inferior to whatever came before it?
further, technologies that start off as "inferior" didn't make it until someone figured out a way to make it superior. the market can and will do so without any help from the government. with the government spending 3+ trillion dollars a year, do we really need them to start deciding which technologies they are going to allow to become superior or not?
also, in response to a lot of other responses, I called for a tax-break, not a subsidy, of oil.
EPT
