Are the Majority of Americans Closet Socialists?

[jpark1800]

Seriously dude wtf are you talking about?

im talking about the future of america

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[alpha2agonist]

Not talking about you pgg. you are reasonable and concerned, I am talking about all of this "the sky is falling" nonsense. jpark being a prime example.

 

[RabbMD]

The founders of this country gave us a republic, modeled on pre imperial rome, not the democracy of Athens. However, we have progressively and intentionally deteriorated into more democratic in nature. Senators were originally elected by state legislators, we changed that to direct elections. Owning land was initially required to vote (along with the deplorable conditions of also being white and male), we eliminted that. The federal income tax was unconstitutional, we passed a constitutional admendment. I think it is inarguable that over the last 230 years we have become less of a republic and more of a democracy. There is a very good reason the founders shied away from democracy. In my opinion voting is not a right, but a duty, that should be coupled with responsibilities. I dont think it unreasonable to require someone to either own land, or at least pay something in income taxes to vote. Do not count soc sec as income taxes. While soc sec tax is regressive, the benefits one acquires through payment of this tax are vastly progressive (the people that pay in the least get a far higher return on investment than those that pay higher amounts). This progressivity of soc sec benefits is far in excess of any regressivity of the tax. So do not talk about removing the soc sec wage cap without also talking about restructuring benefits. Unless of course you are just fir using soc sec for wonton wealth redistribution, then just admit that is your goal for the sake of intellectual honesty.

 

[powermd]

Democratic Presidents Are Better for the Economy

"In "The President as Economist: Scoring Economic Performance From Harry Truman to Barack Obama," I compare the 12 presidents since World War II using 17 economic indicators, including growth in gross domestic product, rate of unemployment, inflation, population below the poverty line, increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, savings and investment rates, exports and trade balances, federal budget growth, and debt and federal taxes as a share of GDP."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html

"With respect to GDP growth, three of the top four performers were Democrats and four of the bottom five were Republicans. In reducing the poverty rate, the top three were Democrats and two of the bottom three were Republicans. The Democrats also had a better record on employment."

Maybe it's not the end of the world if BO is re-elected.

 

[chessknt]

Democratic Presidents Are Better for the Economy

"In “The President as Economist: Scoring Economic Performance From Harry Truman to Barack Obama,” I compare the 12 presidents since World War II using 17 economic indicators, including growth in gross domestic product, rate of unemployment, inflation, population below the poverty line, increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, savings and investment rates, exports and trade balances, federal budget growth, and debt and federal taxes as a share of GDP."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html

"With respect to GDP growth, three of the top four performers were Democrats and four of the bottom five were Republicans. In reducing the poverty rate, the top three were Democrats and two of the bottom three were Republicans. The Democrats also had a better record on employment."

Maybe it's not the end of the world if BO is re-elected.

That is also ignoring major world events. Do you think Clinton or the tech boom was responsible for the above-mentioned factors? Bush or 9/11?

 

[TRuSchool]

haha. its so funny listening to liberal idiots assuming Obama has this election because he's still up in the polls that are SO DEMOCRATICALLY SKEWED its not even funny. A lot of the polls are basing the turnout to be like 2008 and we all know that definitely will not happen. Nobody is excited to go out and vote for Obama like in 2008. I remember in 2004 F Chuck Todd was guaranteeing Kerry would beat Bush and so pompous about it just like most of the idiots on this thread are with their blind fascination of Obama.

 

[TRuSchool]

And that whole 47% comment is nowhere near the end of the election. It gave him even more support. The people who have a problem with that comment were going to vote for Obama anyway and just got mad because they got called dependent entitlement ******.

Obama says things like "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." Thats a far worse of a statement than anything Romney has ever said. Romney isnt responsible for the 47% of america that is receiving govt support.

 

[Somnus Tuto]

That is also ignoring major world events. Do you think Clinton or the tech boom was responsible for the above-mentioned factors? Bush or 9/11?

Better yet, Bush or the final repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (limiting the intermingling of commercial banks with securities firms) by Clinton in 1999 that birthed a plague of derivatives trading, creating the wall street crash of 2007 and the greatest recession/financial crisis in American history since the great depression.
.
.

 

[yappy]

Jpark has had other SN and tends to be a sky-is-falling type. I imagine he gets banned from time to time and makes some variation of J and Park to continue his nonsense.

Not talking about you pgg. you are reasonable and concerned, I am talking about all of this "the sky is falling" nonsense. jpark being a prime example.

The BS thing about Romney is that the people who receive some type of governmental support will NOT automatically vote for Obama. Also, to say they all see themselves as victims or who think it's the gov responsibility to take care of them is grandstanding. It's the type of rhetoric that I imagine self-important-wealth people like to believe to puff themselves up.

Many of these people (my parents for example) have voted R their whole lives. They're not that political of people;however, they support the GOP, never thought of themselves are victims, but always qualified for deductions and worked for a living.

F-U-Romney.

 

[pgg]

haha. its so funny listening to liberal idiots assuming Obama has this election because he's still up in the polls that are SO DEMOCRATICALLY SKEWED its not even funny. A lot of the polls are basing the turnout to be like 2008 and we all know that definitely will not happen. Nobody is excited to go out and vote for Obama like in 2008. I remember in 2004 F Chuck Todd was guaranteeing Kerry would beat Bush and so pompous about it just like most of the idiots on this thread are with their blind fascination of Obama.

Well, elections are sorta like football games, lots of talk leading up to them, everyone has a strong opinion. But there's a reason why they actually go out and play the games.


The debates are still coming. A lot can happen in the world between now and then.

Polls are imperfect, but they DO have measurable errors and they DO have predictive value. Statistics isn't psychology, there's actual science behind it. Read fivethirtyeight.com for a while and come back with your criticisms of their statistical methods. The guy who runs it makes no secret that he leans left and supports Obama, but the site is pretty good. I followed it pretty closely through the last two elections and the commentary is well reasoned, relatively impartial, and their predictions were easily weeks ahead of other (biased) sites.

most of the idiots on this thread are with their blind fascination of Obama.

Who's that? Are you referring to me?

 

[Renaissance Man]

Romney will win in a landslide not because he's Romney, but because he's not Obama. The same idiots who are saying Obama will win this election are the ones who didnt see the 2010 midterm landslide coming. Ask Chik-Fil-A if they think people support Obama

We are 7 weeks out...a Romney "landslide" at this point would be an incredible, historic comeback. Probably not likely.

All this "tyranny of the majority" stuff just doesn't fly with the facts. The states with the largest % of poor, non income tax paying individuals will go to Romney in a landslide (alabama, mississippi, georgia, Louisiana, arkansas, south carolina, texas, with the exception of Florida).

The 47% in those states are the only reason Romney has a chance.

This. I have never understood why the poor, and uneducated in these areas lean right when the majority of them would be helped by liberal policies. It kind of puts a dent in the argument that Obama was elected on the premise of taking from rich and giving to the poor. Obama easily won the college and graduate school educated vote as well, at least in 2008.

Correction: 47% don't pay income tax. Why is the bolded so hard for some people to understand? Most still pay payroll, local, and state taxes, or are retirees who paid said taxes while they were working (and still pay sales taxes, property taxes, and eventually "pay" estate taxes). Often times their tax burden as a % of income is less then the 1% due to lower tax rates on capital gains and the regressive nature of most state sales taxes.

Another good point. Should a family of 4 making below $26,000 (something like this, didn't fact check) have to pay federal income tax?...The money the government would tax from them would then have to be given back and more to support the children via food stamps, insurance, etc.

No longer is it embarassing to collect food stamps, disability, Medicare, etc.; these days it is par for the Obama Course.

Not everyone who accepts food stamps and Medicare is a lazy bum who doesn't look for work. Am I the only one who doesn't think it should be embarrassing to take help when needed? I completely agree that Americans, as a whole, are lazier and more dependent on help, but don't tell me you believe this trend started in 2008...

 

[jpark1800]

Jpark has had other SN and tends to be a sky-is-falling type. I imagine he gets banned from time to time and makes some variation of J and Park to continue his nonsense.




The BS thing about Romney is that the people who receive some type of governmental support will NOT automatically vote for Obama. Also, to say they all see themselves as victims or who think it's the gov responsibility to take care of them is grandstanding. It's the type of rhetoric that I imagine self-important-wealth people like to believe to puff themselves up.

Many of these people (my parents for example) have voted R their whole lives. They're not that political of people;however, they support the GOP, never thought of themselves are victims, but always qualified for deductions and worked for a living.

F-U-Romney.

No you are just Mr. Bitter. Why are you ALWAYS following me into each thread?

 

[pgg]

Democratic Presidents Are Better for the Economy

"In “The President as Economist: Scoring Economic Performance From Harry Truman to Barack Obama,” I compare the 12 presidents since World War II using 17 economic indicators, including growth in gross domestic product, rate of unemployment, inflation, population below the poverty line, increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, savings and investment rates, exports and trade balances, federal budget growth, and debt and federal taxes as a share of GDP."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html

"With respect to GDP growth, three of the top four performers were Democrats and four of the bottom five were Republicans. In reducing the poverty rate, the top three were Democrats and two of the bottom three were Republicans. The Democrats also had a better record on employment."

Maybe it's not the end of the world if BO is re-elected.

Two comments here.

First, if you're going to lay all or some of the blame for the current economic mess on Bush, 3.5 years into Obama's term (as I think is reasonable to a point) ... then you can't also go back and give credit to presidents for good times that occurred during their terms.

It's just as plausible, in an equally unscientific fuzzy correlation=causation manner, to say that those economic "good times" happened during Democratic administrations because there was a lag before the outstandingly wonderful heroic Republican policies produced effects, and all those s***** soshulist Democrats then drove things into the ground just in time for a Republican to take office.


Second, I don't think the near or long-term trajectory of our economy will be much different no matter who gets elected. The oceans won't boil and my kitchen sink won't fill with blood if Obama gets another term. I think we're basically boned and headed for a prolonged period of stagnant pain whichever one of those pandering suits gets the job. But Obama's already appointed two Justices (people I don't like) and if he gets another term he'll almost certainly appoint two more. And if someone unexpectedly drops dead (those guys ARE kind of old and type-A) he might appoint three more.

I disagree with much of Obama's philosophy and view of the world, and I don't want the next 20-30 years of the Supreme Court to have four or even five Obama-appointed Justices serving on it. That's the sort of environment in which fundamental and lasting change can occur.

Neither one of them is going to fix the economy, find a new source of $20/barrel light sweet crude, or bring peace to the Middle East. I care about the judges they appoint though.

 

[pgg]

I have never understood why the poor, and uneducated in these areas lean right when the majority of them would be helped by liberal policies.

Social/religious issues like abortion and gay marriage.

To a lesser extent, gun rights.

 

[Renaissance Man]

Social/religious issues like abortion and gay marriage.

To a lesser extent, gun rights.

Which raises another question I have always had. In a nutshell conservatives want a small government that lowers taxes, deregulates businesses, and mostly stays out of the way...unless you are a women, a homosexual, or otherwise impinge on traditional Christian values. In that case, the government needs to get involved?

 

[jpark1800]

Which raises another question I have always had. In a nutshell conservatives want a small government that lowers taxes, deregulates businesses, and mostly stays out of the way...unless you are a women, a homosexual, or otherwise impinge on traditional Christian values. In that case, the government needs to get involved?

everyone and their mom is a hypocrite these days

 

[pgg]

Which raises another question I have always had. In a nutshell conservatives want a small government that lowers taxes, deregulates businesses, and mostly stays out of the way...unless you are a women, a homosexual, or otherwise impinge on traditional Christian values. In that case, the government needs to get involved?

I don't know if those religious conservatives are a vocal minority or a vocal majority, but they sure are vocal and I wish they'd shut up about those things. I sometimes wonder if those guys would be happier losing elections over abortion than winning them over the economy.

Democrats have their own irrational and vote-losing planks too, like gun control. They just seem more willing to tiptoe around them come election time.

 

[Renaissance Man]

I don't know if those religious conservatives are a vocal minority or a vocal majority, but they sure are vocal and I wish they'd shut up about those things. I sometimes wonder if those guys would be happier losing elections over abortion than winning them over the economy.

Democrats have their own irrational and vote-losing planks too, like gun control. They just seem more willing to tiptoe around them come election time.

I agree. I think it would be much easier for me to lean right this election if they would shut it sometimes though, you know? You would think a higher up in the Republican Party would tell them that.

Edit**: I appreciate the dialogue without arguments, pgg. I am just discussing, and not trying to start anything on the thread.

 

[neuropathic]

I agree. I think it would be much easier for me to lean right this election if they would shut it sometimes though, you know? You would think a higher up in the Republican Party would tell them that.

Edit**: I appreciate the dialogue without arguments, pgg. I am just discussing, and not trying to start anything on the thread.

There are traditional values that are not political, they are not left or right. Issues such as abortions, gay marriage are not things that can be compromised if you have "true" Christian/Catholic faith.

 

[powermd]

Pgg,

I'm can't write a lengthy reply, but I'm glad you responded as I was curious as to your opinion on this issue. I was hoping you would have a better response than simple denial that economic progress can properly be attributed to the party in the WH at the time progress is made. It seems just as likely to me that democrats can properly take the credit bestowed on this author's analysis. Regarding your first comment, this author allowed a one year interval to pass before crediting a new president with economic data.

You go on to express concern about the appointment of additional liberal justices. I am similarly horrified at the prospect of another Scalia, Ailito, or Thomas. To me the Citizen's United decision is damning evidence that it's game set and match for the ultra rich. They can buy all the politicians they want now.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

Two comments here.

First, if you're going to lay all or some of the blame for the current economic mess on Bush, 3.5 years into Obama's term (as I think is reasonable to a point) ... then you can't also go back and give credit to presidents for good times that occurred during their terms.

It's just as plausible, in an equally unscientific fuzzy correlation=causation manner, to say that those economic "good times" happened during Democratic administrations because there was a lag before the outstandingly wonderful heroic Republican policies produced effects, and all those s***** soshulist Democrats then drove things into the ground just in time for a Republican to take office.


Second, I don't think the near or long-term trajectory of our economy will be much different no matter who gets elected. The oceans won't boil and my kitchen sink won't fill with blood if Obama gets another term. I think we're basically boned and headed for a prolonged period of stagnant pain whichever one of those pandering suits gets the job. But Obama's already appointed two Justices (people I don't like) and if he gets another term he'll almost certainly appoint two more. And if someone unexpectedly drops dead (those guys ARE kind of old and type-A) he might appoint three more.

I disagree with much of Obama's philosophy and view of the world, and I don't want the next 20-30 years of the Supreme Court to have four or even five Obama-appointed Justices serving on it. That's the sort of environment in which fundamental and lasting change can occur.

Neither one of them is going to fix the economy, find a new source of $20/barrel light sweet crude, or bring peace to the Middle East. I care about the judges they appoint though.

 

[yappy]

I felt the need to chime in to offer another viewpoint from what maybe the same side of the fence. I don't think it's the position of my church, religion etc. to exact beliefs or our values to shape public policy.

I guess what I'm saying is that I vote according to non-social issues and live my life according to my own convictions. I don't feel responsible for what a secular government decides and don't think that it should represent my personal beliefs. But I understand where you're coming from because many of my friends are the single issue voters you're referring to.

There are traditional values that are not political, they are not left or right. Issues such as abortions, gay marriage are not things that can be compromised if you have "true" Christian/Catholic faith.

 

[neuropathic]

Second, I don't think the near or long-term trajectory of our economy will be much different no matter who gets elected. The oceans won't boil and my kitchen sink won't fill with blood if Obama gets another term.

I am not an economist, but I absolutely disagree. I don't know what Romeny will do, but Obama policies will not create more jobs, and the unemployment will remain high. The economy will not grow with high unemployment rate or millions of people giving up looking for jobs. His reckless spending and silly investments resulted in tax payers money being wasted. Our country is broke and he escalated the deficits to the highest in history and there is no end in sight. He keeps printing money to repay debts and inflation will hit sooner or later.

As a matter of fact, believe it or not, our economy may have reached it's peak over the last 4 years. There is only 1 direction to go.

 

[pgg]

Pgg,

I'm can't write a lengthy reply, but I'm glad you responded as I was curious as to your opinion on this issue. I was hoping you would have a better response than simple denial that economic progress can properly be attributed to the party in the WH at the time progress is made. It seems just as likely to me that democrats can properly take the credit bestowed on this author's analysis.

Oh I'm not entirely denying that the party in charge can't take credit for progress that is made, I'm just saying you can't have it both ways and blame 2012 economic woes on Bush if you're going to give 1996 style credit to Clinton ...


The truth probably lays comfortably in the middle, with a ton of noise and lag following any president-inspired policy change. Presidents DON'T have a lot of direct impact on the economy. We have a central bank, always with its thumb on the scale, beholden to nobody it seems. We have Congress, and it's rare that the Senate, House, and Presidency are all aligned and cooperative. There's the Supreme Court, which evolves very very slowly by design. Policy changes themselves tend to be incremental, not dramatic. We have chaotic world events.

You go on to express concern about the appointment of additional liberal justices. I am similarly horrified at the prospect of another Scalia, Ailito, or Thomas. To me the Citizen's United decision is damning evidence that it's game set and match for the ultra rich. They can buy all the politicians they want now.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

It does and to be completely honest I have mixed feelings on it.

I don't want to see Roe v Wade overturned, I think corporations=people was ridiculous. I think a solidly conservative/right court, when faced with the inevitable gay marriage or gay rights case, will probably make the wrong decision and perpetuate current discrimination. I worry that a conservative court will do things like embrace Patriot Act shenanigans or otherwise expand police powers in the name of national security or being tough on crime.

As a heathen unbeliever atheist, I don't like the churchly leanings of a conservative court.


But I was also horrified to see that Heller and McDonald, cases that upheld not just any right, but #2 on the Bill of Rights, were won by mere 5-4 margins. I'm not sure I want to derail this thread into another gun rights thread but I do think that the individual right to armed self defense is a fundamental civil right, and I am frankly appalled and angered by relentless efforts (always, always from the left) to restrict and erode this civil right.


Beyond that, as I alluded to earlier in this thread, I don't agree with the general socioeconomic direction that Obama wants to take the country.

I'm totally OK with the allged "dirty" little secret of Libertarianism (you're on your own) and I don't want a government that has the power or (borrowed) resources to endlessly support and expand the roles of government. I don't mind if some people fail at life.

Some of the plans and policies Obama has or will attempt to put in place won't reach fruition for years, and will be challenged in the courts. When the day comes that more of his large government, redistribute-the-wealth endeavors reach the Supreme Court, I don't want four (or, god help us, FIVE) people he hand selected sitting there to interpret the Constitution in a way that allows them to proceed.


But despite all that - if I believed even for an instant that Obama could fix the economy and kick off an era of 4% annual GDP growth and 5% unemployment ... I would vote for him myself. But I think our economic problems are far beyond what the half-assed bandaids he or Romney can address.

I think western capitalist civilization is in for a very rough patch. During such times, nations and governments rise and fall. I don't want a left-leaning Court that tends to view the Constitution as a fluid collection of suggestions open to wide interpretation during that time.

I don't think Obama is a bad guy. I think he's done a fine job with foreign policy, despite the overall ****ty state of the world today. I don't think he's deliberately engineering the destruction of the middle class so everyone can be equally poor. I think he was born in Hawaii. But I don't want him and a Court 1/2 (or more) appointed by him steering the country.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I am not an economist, but I absolutely disagree. I don't know what Romeny will do, but Obama policies will not create more jobs, and the unemployment will remain high. The economy will not grow with high unemployment rate or millions of people giving up looking for jobs. His reckless spending and silly investments resulted in tax payers money being wasted. Our country is broke and he escalated the deficits to the highest in history and there is no end in sight. He keeps printing money to repay debts and inflation will hit sooner or later.

As a matter of fact, believe it or not, our economy may have reached it's peak over the last 4 years. There is only 1 direction to go.

Obama and the 47% of voters don't care because they won't be paying for it. At least, that is what they think because the truth is everyone will be hurt by the devalued dollar and escalating deficit.

 

[pgg]

I am not an economist, but I absolutely disagree. I don't know what Romeny will do, but Obama policies will not create more jobs, and the unemployment will remain high. The economy will not grow with high unemployment rate or millions of people giving up looking for jobs. His reckless spending and silly investments resulted in tax payers money being wasted. Our country is broke and he escalated the deficits to the highest in history and there is no end in sight. He keeps printing money to repay debts and inflation will hit sooner or later.

We're a truck hurtling toward a wall. 20 ft away at 60 mph. Obama may not want to hit the brakes, but that doesn't mean Romney can hit the brakes hard enough to avoid a wreck.

I really do think we're boned either way.

As a matter of fact, believe it or not, our economy may have reached it's peak over the last 4 years. There is only 1 direction to go.

I've been saying this for years.

1) Cheap energy is gone. The fact that oil is still in the $100+/barrel range, despite poor demand from the world economy being in the toilet, is itself ample evidence that cheap oil is gone forever. There's a reason we're digging in the Arctic ocean. Any real economic recovery is going to be hamstrung by sharply rising oil costs. The world will not see annualized 3% growth for decades, because energy costs will stifle it. Absent a paradigm shifting tech breakthrough like seawater fusion reactors or teleportation of methane from Jupiter's moons, there is no replacement for cheap oil.

2) Any plausible debt repayment scenario involves GDP growing faster than debt. GDP won't grow; see point #1. Therefore, two possible outcomes: default, or currency devaluation. Neither option will be good for GDP.

If we're lucky, we'll stumble along at 0.5% growth for the next couple decades, and the dollar will be devalued in a slow, orderly fashion.

More likely, will stumble through recession after recession, bubble after bubble, can kick after can kick, with weak "recoveries" characterized by "promising" growth in the 0.5% range ... with manipulated or fabricated numbers released to reassure the mob. Ie, exactly what's happening now.

I don't think either Obama or Romney can stop this.


That said, I still get up and go to work every day, and save for a peaceful boring retirement.

 

[neuropathic]

We're a truck hurtling toward a wall. 20 ft away at 60 mph. Obama may not want to hit the brakes, but that doesn't mean Romney can hit the brakes hard enough to avoid a wreck.

I don't know why you say Romney can't do better than Obama. Romeny is not going to turn our country 180 degreesm but Obama is only going to perpetuate the misery. We need to create jobs, cut government spending, provide incentives for small businesses to grow, invest tax payers money wisely. More people working, more people paying taxes, more people spending money, everyone is happy.

Obama just don't understand the basics of economy.

 

[yappy]

1) Cheap energy is gone. The fact that oil is still in the $100+/barrel range, despite poor demand from the world economy being in the toilet, is itself ample evidence that cheap oil is gone forever. There's a reason we're digging in the Arctic ocean. Any real economic recovery is going to be hamstrung by sharply rising oil costs. The world will not see annualized 3% growth for decades, because energy costs will stifle it. Absent a paradigm shifting tech breakthrough like seawater fusion reactors or teleportation of methane from Jupiter's moons, there is no replacement for cheap oil.

The idea that there are no technology solutions is a dogma that is perpetuated by conservatives time and time again. What is the obsession with oil, at the exclusion of every other form of energy, as a long term energy solution?

Nano is growing up. The days of oil dipping down and taking out Solar R&D are going away. The movement towards cheap printed nano-carbon sheets with growing efficiency is headed our way.

The cost solution is already established; but, once they start working on the efficiency problem it will be a game changer. Currently there are bacteria in the oceans that are 98% efficient mean while our current panels are ~13-17%. Clearly there is a huge potential but I see this technology demonized AGAIN and AGAIN and stifled by conservatives who just mimick their queen by replying "Drill baby, drill" to energy prospects.

 

[pgg]

The idea that there are no technology solutions is a dogma that is perpetuated by conservatives time and time again. What is the obsession with oil, at the exclusion of every other form of energy, as a long term energy solution?

Nano is growing up. The days of oil dipping down and taking out Solar R&D are going away. The movement towards cheap printed nano-carbon sheets with growing efficiency is headed our way.

The cost solution is already established; but, once they start working on the efficiency problem it will be a game changer. Currently there are bacteria in the oceans that are 98% efficient mean while our current panels are ~13-17%. Clearly there is a huge potential but I see this technology demonized AGAIN and AGAIN and stifled by conservatives who just mimick their queen by replying "Drill baby, drill" to energy prospects.

Fusion is always 20 years away, strong AI is always 50 years away, wake me when I can buy algae-made biodiesel for my car.

Solar's neat and I'm a fan (I got my slice of .gov cheese when I put an array on my roof a couple years ago), but the world runs on liquid hydrocarbon fuels, plastic, and fertilizer.

Oil prices have been high for the better part of a decade now. The dip in 2008 was demand related. There's no conspiracy to suppress green technology. It just costs a lot. And again, the problem isn't that the oil is gone, it's that the CHEAP oil is gone.

Replacing expensive oil with expensive green alternatives doesn't solve the fundamental problem: the era of cheap energy is OVER, the world's industrialized economies have depended on cheap energy, and without cheap energy GDP can't keep growing at 3-4% year over year, and that means the debt game has only two possible outcomes (default and/or devaluation).

Again: we're boned.


Your prediction of nanotech printed solar panels is exactly the kind of seawater-fusion gamechanger I mentioned above. I think our difference of opinion here is just that you think that such technology is inevitable and imminent and I don't.

There is ample and growing incentive for that tech to be developed, and it hasn't yet. It must be hard, because there are $billions if not $trillions to be made from it. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, it seems prudent to behave as if it's not going to show up soon.

The idea that there are no technology solutions is a dogma that is perpetuated by conservatives time and time again.

Meanwhile, proven nuclear technology is ignored. I'd be a lot less pessimistic if Obama had a press conference tomorrow to declare he was going to fast-track approval for the construction of 100 new thorium breeder reactors ...

... except that won't happen because of, you know, the anti-nuclear dogma that is perpetuated by liberals time and time again.

Instead we get reassurances that wind and solar are aaaaaaaalmost there.

 

[yappy]

http://www.nanosolar.com/

 

[GoodmanBrown]

And again, the problem isn't that the oil is gone, it's that the CHEAP oil is gone.

Replacing expensive oil with expensive green alternatives doesn't solve the fundamental problem: the era of cheap energy is OVER, the world's industrialized economies have depended on cheap energy, and without cheap energy GDP can't keep growing at 3-4% year over year, and that means the debt game has only two possible outcomes (default and/or devaluation).

It would be my crowning Internet achievement to convince you this is wrong. I doubt it will happen, but here goes.

The greenest energy available right now is natural gas. There, I said it. It's not warm and green all over like solar or wind, but it's reduce green house gas emissions by more than the Kyoto treaty. Read the above article.

Additionally, we have 50+ years of natural gas hidden away in the US. While we've transitioned surprising amounts of our electricity production to natural gas, we still have lower natural gas prices than 5 years ago. We have so much gas, that drillers are holding off on drilling some wells in PA because they don't want to reduce the price further. Entire states have yet to open up their borders to fracking, but when they do, even more will flow into the market. Natural gas will remain cheap for years to come, and I predict we'll see increasing amounts of our energy demand met by the product. Other countries also have Marcellus Shale-like formations, so this won't just be a US boom.

As for your second premise, that we're 20 ft. from a brick wall doing 60mph, I disagree there too. Whether Congress gets together, passes long-term sensible budgets or not, the US has the ability to pay off its debt. Tax rates are at a relative low. In fact, a very interesting article by Slate posited that if we let the Bush tax cuts expire and allowed the AMT to gradually march up, we'd balance the budget in a few years and pay off the debt without drastically cutting spending. All things considered, I'm not overly rosy about the US outlook over the coming decade (vis-a-vis the inevitable dividing of the workforce into skilled, well-paid workers and unskilled, low-paid workers), but the fat lady hasn't even gotten on stage yet.

 

[countingdays]

It would be my crowning Internet achievement to convince you this is wrong. I doubt it will happen, but here goes.

The greenest energy available right now is natural gas. There, I said it. It's not warm and green all over like solar or wind, but it's reduce green house gas emissions by more than the Kyoto treaty. Read the above article.

Additionally, we have 50+ years of natural gas hidden away in the US. While we've transitioned surprising amounts of our electricity production to natural gas, we still have lower natural gas prices than 5 years ago. We have so much gas, that drillers are holding off on drilling some wells in PA because they don't want to reduce the price further. Entire states have yet to open up their borders to fracking, but when they do, even more will flow into the market. Natural gas will remain cheap for years to come, and I predict we'll see increasing amounts of our energy demand met by the product. Other countries also have Marcellus Shale-like formations, so this won't just be a US boom.

As for your second premise, that we're 20 ft. from a brick wall doing 60mph, I disagree there too. Whether Congress gets together, passes long-term sensible budgets or not, the US has the ability to pay off its debt. Tax rates are at a relative low. In fact, a very interesting article by Slate posited that if we let the Bush tax cuts expire and allowed the AMT to gradually march up, we'd balance the budget in a few years and pay off the debt without drastically cutting spending. All things considered, I'm not overly rosy about the US outlook over the coming decade (vis-a-vis the inevitable dividing of the workforce into skilled, well-paid workers and unskilled, low-paid workers), but the fat lady hasn't even gotten on stage yet.

What you ignore is that as taxes go up people work less and tax receipts don't go up nearly as much as expected. You increase tax receipts by increasing employment, not by punishing work. Obama's handout nation discourages work, increases expenditures, and decreases tax receipts. Raising taxes to fund increased handouts discourages work for both the wealthy and the poor.

 

[thomprya]

Obama and the 47% of voters don't care because they won't be paying for it. At least, that is what they think because the truth is everyone will be hurt by the devalued dollar and escalating deficit.

This is just a silly notion, I am part of that 47%, my grandparents, my disabled veteran cousin, my extended family working 60+ hrs a week and barely paying the bills for their small business all fall into this category and none of them want to see the dollar devalued or will vote for Obama this November. That 47% statement was a pretty unfortunate thing to be recorded for Romney's election hopes.

 

[starsop93]

What you ignore is that as taxes go up people work less and tax receipts don't go up nearly as much as expected. You increase tax receipts by increasing employment, not by punishing work. Obama's handout nation discourages work, increases expenditures, and decreases tax receipts. Raising taxes to fund increased handouts discourages work for both the wealthy and the poor.

On the other end of the economic spectrum, extremely low taxes on investment income is what discourages work. This is why our best and brightest make financial "products" not actual things. Why should I bust my ass working in a 35% tax bracket when I can sit on my ass in a 15% one?

So far the low taxes on the "job creators" have massively increased their wealth and not created jobs. Why is that going to be different under Romney? Raising taxes on investment will encourage more of that money to be spent, which will actually create jobs, and therefore create more people who can afford to buy stuff.

 

[likeaboss]

Republicans are such chicken littles. Check out this study in the journal Cell.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

It found that liberalism and conservatism are correlated with brain anatomy. Mainly "greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala."

The amygdala in every species that has one is the fear center of the brain. People with overactive amygdalas have anxiety disorders and irrational fearful responses to things that are not legitimate threats.

Which is why conservatives are stockpiling guns, gold and twinkies in their basements, for the second coming of christ / apocalypse, future race wars, the debasing of our currency, the US running out of energy, our economy going to ****, the government taking your guns, the US turning socialist, AANA targeted assassinations of anesthesiologists, etc. etc. etc.

Calm down, the sky isn't falling. And if it does you will be the ones who cause it with your constant fear mongering.

 

[neuropathic]

This is just a silly notion, I am part of that 47%, my grandparents, my disabled veteran cousin, my extended family working 60+ hrs a week and barely paying the bills for their small business all fall into this category and none of them want to see the dollar devalued or will vote for Obama this November. That 47% statement was a pretty unfortunate thing to be recorded for Romney's election hopes.

Smelling troll. This thread seems to have a lot of pre-health, medical students trolling through. You are part of that 47%? Do you have a full time job, part-time job? Your extended family working 60+ hours a week doe not fall into the 47% if you actually understand what Romney said. Good luck, not going to repond to trolls anymore.

 

[countingdays]

On the other end of the economic spectrum, extremely low taxes on investment income is what discourages work. This is why our best and brightest make financial "products" not actual things. Why should I bust my ass working in a 35% tax bracket when I can sit on my ass in a 15% one?

So far the low taxes on the "job creators" have massively increased their wealth and not created jobs. Why is that going to be different under Romney? Raising taxes on investment will encourage more of that money to be spent, which will actually create jobs, and therefore create more people who can afford to buy stuff.

What low taxes are those? 35% + payroll etc.? I guess we disagree on the definition of low taxes.

I'd agree somewhat about capital gains tax. If you are compensated for work with stock options, you should pay the income tax rate. If you invest money from cash paid employment, then you shouldn't pay higher than 15% on your gains.

 

[thomprya]

Smelling troll. This thread seems to have a lot of pre-health, medical students trolling through. You are part of that 47%? Do you have a full time job, part-time job? Your extended family working 60+ hours a week doe not fall into the 47% if you actually understand what Romney said. Good luck, not going to repond to trolls anymore.

Not trolling at all, Look at the 47% of people Romney is talking about, people who 'pay no income tax' I don't have a job since I am a medical student = no income tax. My grandparents who are retired don' t have a full time job and collect social security, medicare, and veteran benefits = no income tax. My extended family has been running a business when all the expenses are added in has been losing money for the last few years. The only way they have been keeping it running is via a dual income household, after all the deductions and expenses they are categorized as the working poor = no income taxes paid. Finally, my cousin is 26 and was injured two years ago in Afghanistan, he has not had a job since due to disability and rehab = no income tax. All of them strongly dislike Obama and will not be voting for him. This imaginary lazy half of America who are in Obama's pocket is a line used to rile up republicans and elicit more campaign cash. Romney is a weak candidate and most people I have talked to are casting an anti-Obama vote rather then a pro-Romney vote.

You are correct about this being a physician forum so I won't post here anymore. This is probably the most interesting and engaging forum on SDN which is why it is fun to follow and occasionally post. Back to Cardio

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Not trolling at all, Look at the 47% of people Romney is talking about, people who 'pay no income tax' I don't have a job since I am a medical student = no income tax. My grandparents who are retired don' t have a full time job and collect social security, medicare, and veteran benefits = no income tax. My extended family has been running a business when all the expenses are added in has been losing money for the last few years. The only way they have been keeping it running is via a dual income household, after all the deductions and expenses they are categorized as the working poor = no income taxes paid. Finally, my cousin is 26 and was injured two years ago in Afghanistan, he has not had a job since due to disability and rehab = no income tax. All of them strongly dislike Obama and will not be voting for him. This imaginary lazy half of America who are in Obama's pocket is a line used to rile up republicans and elicit more campaign cash. Romney is a weak candidate and most people I have talked to are casting an anti-Obama vote rather then a pro-Romney vote.

You are correct about this being a physician forum so I won't post here anymore. This is probably the most interesting and engaging forum on SDN which is why it is fun to follow and occasionally post. Back to Cardio

I have to ask, why are you and your family voting for Romney? His vaguely proposed tax plan will likely raise your taxes and cut benefits! He proposes broad decreases in the nominal tax rates which can only be offset (if it will be truly revenue neutral as he says it will) by eliminating school expense tax credits, home mortgage interest tax deductions, charitable donation deductions, and perhaps retirement benefit tax exemptions. You will pay more money for fewer services under Romney.

 

[pgg]

It would be my crowning Internet achievement to convince you this is wrong. I doubt it will happen, but here goes.

I would love to be convinced otherwise.

The greenest energy available right now is natural gas. There, I said it. It's not warm and green all over like solar or wind, but it's reduce green house gas emissions by more than the Kyoto treaty. Read the above article.

Natural gas has some promise, but it's a little premature to declare victory.

Like nuclear plant construction and cheap printable solar panels, I'll believe it when I can see it and buy it. You've got the exact same people who have held up nuclear plant construction for the last few decades jumping on the no-fracking bandwagon. They're pretty good at halting progress. There's no reason to think they won't continue to be pretty good at getting in the way.

Next, there's the individual well lifetime/performance. Any given fracking well will produce very well for a couple years and then fall off very sharply. You can increase production by digging more wells, but as a practical matter it's going to be hard to stay ahead of that curve once demand increases. Conventional natural gas supplies in North America are approaching peak.

To replace gas/diesel as our primary transportation fuels, we need massive infrastructure changes. This is doable, and I'm sure we will do it as oil prices continue to rise, but there are huge costs associated with changing our infrastructure. NG may be cheap now, but that's just because no one's using it and our existing infrastructure is sufficient to handle existing demand. Is NG really going to be cheap when we're using it for everything from electricity generation to trucking to agriculture to commuter cars?

Again the problem isn't running out of energy, it's running out of CHEAP energy. High and rising energy costs acting as brakes on economic growth, which is needed to outgrow existing debt.


In short - there's a great deal of hype over how much NG we can produce, how quickly we can produce it, and how long we can keep producing it. But I'm not convinced it really is all that sustainable, or that it really has the potential to become our primary transportation fuel for 50+ years. I'm no tree-huggin' hippie but widespread aggressive fracking has some environmental risks, and I'm not quite ready to just take the oil industry's word for it when they say it's not going to leave behind a huge mess. It may NOT be feasible or economical to extract those huge proven reserves.

It hasn't just been oil that has fuelled economic growth for the last 100 years, it's been cheap oil.


All that said, I hope you're right. I've actually made some efforts to personally get on the CNG bandwagon. I bought a car on Tuesday, and looked pretty hard for a dual fuel CNG/gasoline vehicle. There aren't any.

There's a natural gas Honda Civic GX for $26K, more than their hybrid model at $24K. The base gas model is $16K. I didn't really want a Civic in the first place, but it illustrates part of the problem: here we have a car in the inexpensive-everyman class, and the NG version is 2/3rds more expensive. Part of that is just a low volume and niche-market premium.

I bought a car that runs on gasoline. Despite my total lack of success in finding something CNG-run to buy, I think there will be some great developments in that area, but I'll put some faith in NG supplanting oil when early adopters like me have the option to actually adopt the technology.

As for your second premise, that we're 20 ft. from a brick wall doing 60mph, I disagree there too.

I concede it's a lousy analogy, because it implies disaster is imminent. I have no idea how much longer the can could be kicked down the road. 2 or 10 or 20 years? So much depends on what happens in the rest of the world. I'm not a market timer.

My intent with the truck/wall analogy was to argue that the extent of our financial problems are such that neither one of the candidates can sidestep them, no matter what they do.

Whether Congress gets together, passes long-term sensible budgets or not, the US has the ability to pay off its debt. Tax rates are at a relative low. In fact, a very interesting article by Slate posited that if we let the Bush tax cuts expire and allowed the AMT to gradually march up, we'd balance the budget in a few years and pay off the debt without drastically cutting spending.

You left out the biggest part of that plan (based on April 2011 figures): their asserted belief that the Affordable Care Act will control health care costs, and that if the Medicare cuts proceeded andstarted "paying doctors low, low rates" that the gap would evaporate ...

They also acknowledge that the predicted 2019 balanced budget for their Do Nothing plan doesn't account for interest on debt. They just predict revenue minus expenses would be in the black. Sure, and the guy being foreclosed down the street would be OK too if he didn't have to worry about the car payment and all that credit card interest and debt.

They also claim that a fiscal deficit of 3% of GDP is "healthy" ... $400+ billion deficits are healthy?!? Perhaps if GDP had been growing at 3% since April 2011 and kept growing at 3% until their 2019 happy-day, I'd concede that point for the sake of argument. But it hasn't, and it won't.

All things considered, I'm not overly rosy about the US outlook over the coming decade (vis-a-vis the inevitable dividing of the workforce into skilled, well-paid workers and unskilled, low-paid workers), but the fat lady hasn't even gotten on stage yet.

The US has a lot going for it. Security (despite terror fearmongers), universities, capitalism, stable government, natural resources, technology, net food exporter.

As I said earlier, I still get up and go to work every day and save money for a boring retirement. I even buy US bonds. Fat lady isn't on stage, but she's working on it.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

What you ignore is that as taxes go up people work less and tax receipts don't go up nearly as much as expected. You increase tax receipts by increasing employment, not by punishing work. Obama's handout nation discourages work, increases expenditures, and decreases tax receipts. Raising taxes to fund increased handouts discourages work for both the wealthy and the poor.

GS, I understand the Laffer curve as well as anyone, but no one has yet shown me a study demonstrating that we've crossed the peak. The tax rates of the 1940s and 50s (90%) were likely past that peak, but research over the last couple decades has not shown substantial increases in growth after tax cuts. In fact, this Fiscal Times article states that tax increases if used correctly could stimulate economic growth.

 

[thomprya]

I have to ask, why are you and your family voting for Romney? His vaguely proposed tax plan will likely raise your taxes and cut benefits! He proposes broad decreases in the nominal tax rates which can only be offset (if it will be truly revenue neutral as he says it will) by eliminating school expense tax credits, home mortgage interest tax deductions, charitable donation deductions, and perhaps retirement benefit tax exemptions. You will pay more money for fewer services under Romney.

Preaching to the choir, I would vote for and support either in a heartbeat if I thought they could turn the economy around and help them out. Unfortunately it feels like the same s*** with a new spin, neither has a decent plan from what I can tell. Too much b.s. floating around. They were positive they were going to have to cover all of their employee's healthcare and that was going to bankrupt them. I actually had to find the specific clause in that ridiculous bill to show them they didn't have to pay anything.

Last post honest -

 

[Arch Guillotti]

No longer is it embarassing to collect food stamps, disability, Medicare, etc.; these days it is par for the Obama Course.

Why is it embarrassing to collect Medicare?

 

[neuropathic]

Why is it embarrassing to collect Medicare?

You don't know how many people in this country gaming the system to get on disability???

You walk into a lawyer's office and tell them you want to apply for disability. They said they will take $6000 up front and when you get SSI, they split 50/50.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

You don't know how many people in this country gaming the system to get on disability???

You walk into a lawyer's office and tell them you want to apply for disability. They said they will take $6000 up front and when you get SSI, they split 50/50.

I am well aware of it and don't like it anymore more than anyone else here. Of course most disability is a scam. I am asking about Medicare though.

 

[neuropathic]

I am well aware of it and don't like it anymore more than anyone else here. Of course most disability is a scam. I am asking about Medicare though.

Ok. I guess you don't know who can get Medicare. 65 or above or you are declared disabled.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Ok. I guess you don't know who can get Medicare. 65 or above or you are declared disabled.

Friend, I understand it very well. I take issue with the assertion that Medicare for all comers is an embarrassment.

 

[countingdays]

Friend, I understand it very well. I take issue with the assertion that Medicare for all comers is an embarrassment.

It should be embarasing since it is basically a way for old people to rob the young. If they had funded it adequately when they were working it wouldn't be embarrasing at all.

 

[Renaissance Man]

Friend, I understand it very well. I take issue with the assertion that Medicare for all comers is an embarrassment.

It is embarrasing to be older than 65 and use a service meant for you...duh.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Friend, I understand it very well. I take issue with the assertion that Medicare for all comers is an embarrassment.

I see many patients under 65 on Medicare. I was referring to this group some of whom are gaming the system.

 

[BLADEMDA]

"There are lots of reasons why anyone concerned about America's future should rue the prospect of President Obama's re-election. What President Obama would do to the Supreme Court is high on the list."

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...warily-ponder-prospect-of-an-obama-court?lite

The Closet Socialist "Lite" US Citizen who votes for Obama will likely get a Progressive, Socialist U.S. Supreme Court as well. Looks like my gun rights won't last much longer and Gay Marriage will be the law of the land.