Calling All Liberals.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Agreed - welfare is out of control in it's current incarnation.

I agree. We need to stop giving big corporations free tax dollars. It is bad for the economy, and costs money that could be used far more productively.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Eliminate all unions and get back to me in ten years.
A whole lot of people will miss them far more than they can presently imagine.

These days the threat of being union can be as effective as being union, which adds to the perception of unions not doing anything for the workers anymore.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

Power shortage? A conservative will lobby to reduce emissions controls so more power plants can be built. A liberal will put in a solar power system.

Expensive gas? A conservative will push for more government support of drilling and reduction in regulations on refineries. A liberal will buy a diesel or a hybrid.

Bzzzt! Wrong! You meant:

"A conservative will lobby to eliminate unnecessary market-limiting rules to allow the market to settle supply/demand imbalances. A well-off, elitist liberal totally out of touch with the needs of ordinary people who don't have a house in sunny southern California and lots of disposable income will fork over the cash to buy expensive toys such as solar power systems and hybrid cars so they can gloat about how much more sophisticated and smarter they are than the rest of us shlubs who live paycheck-to-paycheck in apartment buildings in states that aren't sunny enough to support something as niche as a home solar power system."

Or something like that.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Conservatives are in favor of an amendment that would destroy thousands of legal gay marriages already performed in the US by redefining it as between two heterosexuals only.

Then it should be OK for 2 heterosexual men to marry...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[billvon 2,400]

>Bzzzt! Wrong! You meant:

No, I meant exactly that. There was a power shortage in California, and I put up a solar power system, thus solving my particular problem. This power shortage was caused by Pete Wilson's deregulation scheme, an absurd system in which generators could charge utilities whatever they wanted for power, and the utilities could not raise rates to consumers. Conservatives who were initially all for this system immediately called on Gray Davis (the schmuck who inherited the problem) for a government power buy to solve the problem.

How times change. Nowadays it's conservatives who want the government to fix things for them with taxpayer money, and liberals who solve their own problems with their own money get called names like "out of touch elitists."

>A conservative will lobby to eliminate unnecessary market-limiting rules
>to allow the market to settle supply/demand imbalances.

You do realize it was a conservative (Pete Wilson) who CREATED the rules that caused the problem, right?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Conservatives are in favor of an amendment that would destroy thousands of legal gay marriages already performed in the US by redefining it as between two heterosexuals only.

Then it should be OK for 2 heterosexual men to marry...

Or me, a lesbian male, to marry a nymphomaniac hetero female....

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

>Bzzzt! Wrong! You meant:

No, I meant exactly that. There was a power shortage in California, and I put up a solar power system, thus solving my particular problem.

Good for you. That hardly solves THE problem, though. You could afford a solar power system, and have the expertise to do it. How 'bout everybody else?

Quote

This power shortage was caused by Pete Wilson's deregulation scheme, an absurd system in which generators could charge utilities whatever they wanted for power, and the utilities could not raise rates to consumers.

That's not deregulation. That's just a different kind of regulation. Sure, CA was victimized by a cartel. And CA has no one else to blame for putting themselves in that situation but themseles. Cartels like that can generally only exist in highly regulated environments which CA gleefully provided. Of course things are going to get screwed up trying to unwind it.

Quote

Conservatives who were initially all for this system immediately called on Gray Davis (the schmuck who inherited the problem) for a government power buy to solve the problem.

Are there any actual conservatives in CA with any influence?

Quote

How times change. Nowadays it's conservatives who want the government to fix things for them with taxpayer money, and liberals who solve their own problems with their own money get called names like "out of touch elitists."

"Out of touch elitist" because you expect your solution to somehow have any meaning to someone not in your cushy situation.

Generally when you find conservatives expecting money from the government its to compensate for a screwed up situation government meddling caused in the first place. I think you'll find that much of what is called "corporate welfare" will fall into this category.

Quote

>A conservative will lobby to eliminate unnecessary market-limiting rules
>to allow the market to settle supply/demand imbalances.

You do realize it was a conservative (Pete Wilson) who CREATED the rules that caused the problem, right?

Now who's confusing philosophy with party? Pete Wilson was no conservative. But to be technical, he didn't create the problem, it was already there, brewing. As I said before, trying to unwind a choking regulatory regime will cause many problems. Consider it the price for decades of stupidity by the CA government.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[billvon 2,400]

>You could afford a solar power system, and have the expertise to do
>it. How 'bout everybody else?

Expertise - hire an electrician. Cost - it will pay for itself in around 20 years, so it's a better deal than a 35 year mortgage. Or, if you choose, pay the power company whatever they ask - just don't complain after you make that choice. Choice is a great thing, but sometimes you have to live with the results of your choice.

>Are there any actual conservatives in CA with any influence?

You're kidding, right?

>"Out of touch elitist" because you expect your solution to somehow
> have any meaning to someone not in your cushy situation.

Hmm. So far it has meaning to Kate, Keith, Gavin, Phil, Judy, Robert and all the jumpers at Otay. And about 60,000 other Californians. But if other people want to pay for utility power, that's fine with me. Just don't complain when power costs go up and ask someone else to fix your problem for you.

>Generally when you find conservatives expecting money from the
> government its to compensate for a screwed up situation
> government meddling caused in the first place. I think you'll find
> that much of what is called "corporate welfare" will fall into this
> category.

I guess that is where we differ. I think that people are better off solving their own problems.

[Nightingale 0]

if you don't have enough sun, you might have wind, or your area might have water. All are good sources of power. If the places that could produce power from these sources took advantage of it, supplying the areas where it is not an option would be a possibility.

Personally, I've already talked to my apartment complex about putting solar panels on the roof. They're going to try it out to power the clubhouse. The expense of the panels should pay for themselves in the long run.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Agreed - welfare is out of control in it's current incarnation.

I agree. We need to stop giving big corporations free tax dollars. It is bad for the economy, and costs money that could be used far more productively.

Don't twist my reply... the mention of welfare in the entire thread is welfare for families, not for corporations. You want to discuss corporate welfare, start your own thread.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

if you don't have enough sun, you might have wind, or your area might have water. All are good sources of power. If the places that could produce power from these sources took advantage of it, supplying the areas where it is not an option would be a possibility.

Personally, I've already talked to my apartment complex about putting solar panels on the roof. They're going to try it out to power the clubhouse. The expense of the panels should pay for themselves in the long run.

That's great that you've taken advantage of that opportunity, but I'm guessing my homeowner's association wouldn't be big fans (no pun intended) if I tried to put up a wind turbine in my backyard. And I'm not really in a position to be putting up any dams.

The point I'm trying to get at is most people (60K Californians? That's what, like 0.2% of the population?) don't have the option of alternative power. So why rag on them (Bill, not Kris) for having to depend on utilities hamstrung by silly government regulations?

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[Nightingale 0]

you may not be able to personally put up a wind turbines, but maybe the association would consider it to lower their own electricity bills. Wind turbines could probably be disguised as windmills for decoration. They disguise cell phone towers that way. And perhaps you could talk to your city council representative about getting the city to put up the turbines on city owned land to benefit the entire community? Or maybe your county could do something? Get enough of your neighbors involved by pointing out how it will benefit them, and point out to your local government officials how it can benefit them personally, and people will listen.

For example, when I talked to the apartment management about solar power, I used the fact that the residents would have greatly reduced electricity bills if solar power were used in the apartments. That's an awesome selling point here where the electricity rates are so high.

Also, there are little things you can do. Your own body works great as an alternative mode of transportation. When you have to do errands nearby, walk or ride a bicycle. If possible, use public transportation to avoid putting another vehicle on the road. Personally, I moved closer to the train station and rode the train to work every day. It was faster than sitting in traffic, and I got to relax and read a newspaper.

It's all about how much you want to get involved. If you'd prefer to look the other way, that's your decision, but there are alternatives to traditional power sources that will work for almost everyone. We just need to make the effort to implement them.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

You seem to be under the impression that these are always options.

there are always options unless YOU limit your options. Many here have told you they work full time and go to school. You have complained that it would take to long. Hence agreeing that it could be done but not acceptable for you. I am sorry but that is not acceptable to me to carry you. The Nation does not owe you a education. I would rather to invest lowering the deficit and in Intel to make up for 8 years of neglect during the clinton years. I will however give you the phone number to a school in Kentucky that has no tuition. It's a fine school.

Quote

There are no quick fixes, and to ignore the problem does not motivate it to go away, as much as some people would like that to be true.

You are limiting yourself by a lack of vision. You see the taxpayer as your only option. You can do it if you stop seeing yourself as a victim .

[skydiverton 0]

Quote

Quote

Liberalism in neither left or right. It considers people as inteligent beings capable of taking their own decisions, but if you take a decision and it goes wrong only blame yourself!

Then if you consider yourself a Liberal, you identify with option A in the poll, yes?

100% correct.
I'm getting sick and tired because off other people telling me how to spend my money or even worse:
Steal my money (tax) and use it for purposes I will never support! Let me decide how to spend my own money

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit,
Especially when you are jumping a sport rig

[billvon 2,400]

>The point I'm trying to get at is most people (60K Californians?
>That's what, like 0.2% of the population?) don't have the option of
> alternative power.

Most people in California have a roof. Next time you're at a California DZ, look down from altitude to verify this. Again, no problem at all if you want to buy utility power; your choice. But I can't take people seriously when all they do is list all the reasons they can't do things. Some of us just do them.

>So why rag on them (Bill, not Kris) for having to depend on
>utilities hamstrung by silly government regulations?

Not ragging on you. It is your choice to do so, and I think you should have every right to do so. But when you do make that choice, then accept the consequences.

[wmw999 2,122]

I don't have solar power, or a dam, or a windmill in my back yard. But I do have some of the lowest utility bills in my neighborhood, just by making some really cheap choices (I'm a cheapskate, so I know all about cheap).

Open doors whenever possible (I live in Houston -- we get lots of hot days, and some cold). Learn to live with a range of temperatures. Low-power lights in the ones that are on a lot (like outside lights). When I replaced my A/C, did it with a low-power one. Cook my own food a lot and recycle (reduces trash a bunch).

And I buy my electricity from a company that invests in wind and other similar power, to the degree that for every KWH I use, they'll generate that much into the grid in renewable sources. Not the cheapest provider, but since I already cut down my usage with the other means, I can put my money where my mouth is.

Some day I'll get around to that solar panel. And I'll have to fight my homeowner's association first as well.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Don't twist my reply... the mention of welfare in the entire thread is welfare for families, not for corporations. You want to discuss corporate welfare, start your own thread.

IC. So its okay to give fat corporations tax money, but not needy individuals?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I will however give you the phone number to a school in Kentucky that has no tuition. It's a fine school.

Send info, as long as its not miliatary. PM me.

Quote

You are limiting yourself by a lack of vision. You see the taxpayer as your only option. You can do it if you stop seeing yourself as a victim .

Not playing victim. I just see ashortcoming and very inefficient use of taxdollars that could be saved an utilized for more productive purposes.

As far as reducing the deficit, we had a balanced budget during the Clinton years, so if that is a goal, perhaps you should consider Hillary in 2008. After all, only Reagan Bush and Bush have allowed non-interest contributions to the national debt. (that is to say they increased the debt)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Don't twist my reply... the mention of welfare in the entire thread is welfare for families, not for corporations. You want to discuss corporate welfare, start your own thread.

IC. So its okay to give fat corporations tax money, but not needy individuals?

I'm not saying that, either... again, respond to what I posted or start your own thread.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

When we have people who are the 5th generation living on welfare, THAT's a problem.

I agree. But solutions I would favor would offer oppurtunities for jobs and careers that would pay much better than assistance. That involves education. If people are only able to learn how to survive while poor, that is what their life will be. Education can break that cycle. More poverty won't.

While I've never been on welfare, and don't know the particulars, I don't think it is realistic to expect someone to go from limited assistance to underemployment.

I think the problem might be more motivation than education, and you allude to it here. We are, fundamentally, a capitalist society. Welfare is, fundamentally, a socialist program. These two basic concepts are virtually (though not entirely) immiscible. Personally, I'd like to see an experiment. Take those people who choose to live in the socialist aspect of our society and immerse them in the concept. Make some of them watch the children of others while those people are processing simple tax returns, sorting mail, performing census polls, etc. Such a scenario is likely to motivate some to pursue a more capitalistic lifestyle while the others will at least be providing socialist type contributions to the state, and thereby the public. While such contributions might be inconsequential given the magnitude of the federal budget, it'd be better than the current situation.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

The amount of income doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider it good use of MY money.

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

The money they take from the system is paid back into the system, and then some, with the extra tax money collected after a better job is obtained. Everybody comes out ahead. How is that not a good use for your tax money?

because you are asking me joe taxpayer to foot the bill. When the student left (A) a job (B) Has the ability to work. If YOU want to improve your life have at it. Just don't expect ME to support YOU. Go to night school, join the service or get some on the job training. You have to learn to sacrifice if you want to something, not just have it handed to you

There must be some serious inter-state variations in the implementation of unemployment insurance programs. In MY state (Washington), I'd not be asking for YOUR tax dollars, but rather my and my employer's already paid insurance premiums. Here, if a person becomes unemployed (laid off) they have to wait 2 weeks to file an unemployment insurance claim. Those who quit or are fired for cause have to wait 10 weeks. Regardless of the waiting period, the system works the same for people once they become eligible. They are given a weekly check that is 1 percent of the salary they earned in the previous year, up to a maximum of $496. So a person who has been working steadily and earning $49,600/year would gross $25,792/year on unemployment IF they could draw it for a full year, which they can't. You see once eligibility is determined, the state looks at how much and how long unemployment insurance premiums (i.e. taxes) have been paid for this specific individual. The individual is informed of how much they have in their "account" (something less than what's been paid in) and how long it will last. A person who earned more than $49,600 benefits at this point, because although they are limited to the same weekly check of $496, they can draw that amount for longer because they and their employer paid in more.

I drew unemployment in November 2003. I had been constantly and gainfully employed for about 10 consecutive years. Although told I could draw unemployment for something close to 5 months, I only collected 2 weeks worth before I was again employed. I guess you can characterize that as me asking you to foot the bill for my mortgage, truck payment, groceries, etc if you want, but I'll adamantly insist you are wrong.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Take those people who choose to live in the socialist aspect of our society and immerse them in the concept. Make some of them watch the children of others while those people are processing simple tax returns, sorting mail, performing census polls, etc. Such a scenario is likely to motivate some to pursue a more capitalistic lifestyle while the others will at least be providing socialist type contributions to the state, and thereby the public. While such contributions might be inconsequential given the magnitude of the federal budget, it'd be better than the current situation.

That's similar what the military and its civilian support (government servants) is, right now. Granted, the entrance into the system is a little different, but the practices are very similar. Soldiers interact well in capitalist society.
If we offered a similar system, but with education that has civilian world application, it would likely be very successful.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Not playing victim. I just see ashortcoming and very inefficient use of taxdollars that could be saved an utilized for more productive purposes.

I see it as a capitalist and you as a socialist.

Quote

As far as reducing the deficit, we had a balanced budget during the Clinton years,

Balanced by neglecting the military and intel in places that would have prevented 9/11. as far as Hillery goes, she worse than the last idiot the dems put up. If her health care "reform" would have passed who knows how high our taxes would be.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Balanced by neglecting the military and intel in places that would have prevented 9/11.

I guess if you completely disregard Shrub's (many) failures on that day and the ones that led up to it, then you could blame it on Clinton.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,400]

>Balanced by neglecting the military and intel in places that would have prevented 9/11.

Right. Because the combined might of those terrorists overwhelmed the very best military defense that the US had. With a combination of tactical nukes, anti-tank aircraft, long range cruise missiles and anti-missile batteries, they defeated a humbled US military that had been decimated by the budget cuts of the Clinton administration.

Imagine what the right wing would have said if Clinton had ignored a memo that said "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US" and listed hijacking airliners as a possibility. 9/11 would have been 100% Clinton's fault based solely on that. But instead Bush ignored it - so they need some other way to make it Clinton's fault.