And yesterday they put that on steroids.
In Spite of the TDS Folks I love the Direction of the US and our Policies
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
couple of thoughts...first the courts are supposed to enforce the laws...so supreme court interprets what the laws are supposed to mean and decide accordingly
second, as crazy as this might sound, I'd bet a lot, if not the majority of our elected officials, would like to get all this money out of the system as well. Each of them spend an inordinate amount of time trying to raise money, and none of them like to be beholding to an overbearing contributor who expects actions because of a contribution.
The big change now is that the party organizations will go after the really "big guys" for even larger contributions and then hand these down to the individual candidates...If you want a good career, become a national level fundraiser. These folks normally get about 10% of what they raise, and these days that can lead to 7 figure annual incomes.
Everything you said is true. And yet many, if not the majority of the country, believe the Citizens United interpretation was deeply flawed and wrong. SC justices are human and prone to human error and or perverse incentives.
I believe Citizens United was one such error.
a lot of people agree with you....but then again, a lot of people disagree with other supreme court decisions - it just depends on which side of the spectrum you're on.
You'd think that Congress might get involved at some point. There's too much money in our politics
We used to call these bribes. I love the new MAGA language.
Government ownership - more classic conservatism.
Government ownership - more classic conservatism.
Yeah, don't think i am on board with it.
It does present an interesting debate, imo.
Should the Government be allowed to take a passive, non-voting stake, in companies that are started in or operate in the US?
I, for one, don't think they should have any active ownership. No voting and no ownership over a certain %.
Can't say i agree with Trumps INTC purchase, although i understand it.
not according to AI "Whether a government taking a stock position in a company is "socialism" is a matter of intense debate. Generally, socialism means the public ownership and control of the means of production. However, modern government equity stakes are typically viewed as state capitalism"
I beg to differ in as much as a president like Trump would absolutely use the stake to influence the direction the company takes. Hell, just the fact that openAI is considering this means it knows it needs to get around government obstacles. That is a form of control In my mind.
Regardless of what we call it, it is not a positive development.
We are splitting hairs at that point.
Currently, The shares the Govt holds in INTC are voting shares. That's ownership. Socialism is Government owning the means of production. It's going to take some pretzeling to avoid the label
don't get me wrong I, I'm not in favor of government ownership in US Corporations...even 10% is a slippery slope.
You go from 10% "trump stock ownership" to Bernie sander's 50% direct controlling ownership, paid for by the company
not sure this makes any sense...we can use all the energy we can get. just ask NYC
Trump has been fighting for big oil and against renewable energy since his first term. You should not be surprised.
Please don't respond with a both sides comment.
good one on both sides..so I guess I'm either for fossil fuels or renewables? Sorry, as I posted, we can use all the energy we can get.
This is a good thing. Wind especially is a terrible source for energy and is also incredibly bad for the environment in general.
My response is in regards to your statement that it didn't make sense. It's actually completely predictable.
One can argue the effect on the environment but not its efficiency as an energy source.
Wind energy is highly efficient, converting about 40–50% of the wind's kinetic energy into electricity. This exceeds the thermal efficiency of conventional power sources like coal, which typically operate at 30–40% efficiency. Because wind is free, the energy payback time for a turbine is remarkably fast—only 5 to 7 months.
Why do you think wind requires such ridiculous subsidies to exist as a technology then?
The environment impact is terrible on them btw. They're not remotely green or good for the environment
i am ALLIN on using the carbon based energy and proceed to nuclear balls to the walls
Solar and electric cars are still not cost effective nor practical
Consider this
Wind Turbine Profit Calculator
Calculate profitability and payback period of wind turbine investmentsWind Turbine Profit Calculator | ROI & Payback Analysis for Wind Energy
Investment Analysis
Payback Period: 20.0 yearsAnnual ROI: 5.0%
Environmental Impact
Your wind turbine system saves approximately 865.1 tons of CO₂ per year compared to grid electricity generation, equivalent to removing 188.1 cars from the road annually.I think 20 years to get your money back kills this as an investment.
Why does the agricultural industry require huge subsidies? Same with big oil. Same with coal....
Do you really wanna compare the subsidies per kwh of energy provided between wind, coal and oil? You're going to look really, really foolish if so..
Every form of energy production requires subsidies. You choose to single out wind because of your TDS.
I chose to single out wind because it receives 2.6 cents per kw/h of energy produced in subsidies while coal receives 0.0005 cents per kw/h in comparison. Wind is also not consistent or sustainable, is environmentally unfriendly, and at end of life the blades all end up in landfills where they will spend the next several hundred years slowly breaking down and leeching into the groundwater. That doesn't even get into the issue with styrene off gassing in manufacturing said turbine blades.
The only thing dumber than wind power is coastal wind power with the turbines plopped into the fu cking ocean to leak oil and cause the same environmental problems they do on land, only with less available maintenance for upkeep.
let me understand your comment..So I posted it didn't make sense to kill renewable energy subsidy programs...we need all the energy we can get...and you're arguing that it did make sense to end renewable subsidies?
I have to admit your position surprises me
What is not cost effective for electric? My operating cost and total cost of ownership for my electric cars is cheaper than for gas cars.
You can gripe about electric, but cost shouldn’t be one of them.
Its actually Economic Fascism......a paper written 30 years ago from The Foundation for Economic Education (a great site the way)
Economic Fascism
Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during the 1930s.
fee.org
To be clear I am Not Against Electric Vehicles or any alternative to Carbon based transportation
I just feel the policies are a little too skewed toward forcing EV inorganic instead of organic growth using market forces
For the moment the electric car fits into your needs and that is a winner for you
It also does not work for many people so we need to let the free market drive the solutions
Of course times will change and my thinking will change