How I think the economy will go and why

Page 2 of 3  
So, you might for example. Say that President Obama wants less government control over things? Less size of government, and more freedom?
I do seriously believe that liberals and conservatives differ widely in their goals.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Everybody agrees on goals, we differ on methods. Liberals tend to provide for the general welfare through the treasury, conservatives tend to promote the general welfare through the economy.
and people do far better under the conservatives. (when conservatives actually ARE "conservative")
California is the prime example of socialism in the US. THAT is what Obama wants for the entire US. One big 3rd world country.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Right! Obammy wants total socialism for the entire US. Government control over everything. I'm glad you noticed that Libs and Cons do not want the same things.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Would faux conservatives be "CINO"?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

You're right in one sense: conservatives generally want smaller government, but only as a means to an end. Liberals usually want larger government, but again, only as a means to an end. But there are exceptions to these general rules.
As a conservative, I'm in favor of some branches of government getting bigger.
The military, for example, so we can more efficiently kill our enemies, potential enemies, and the families of either.
Conservatives also tend to favor more prisons.
As an aside, I see where the governors of several states are about to loose several thousand prisoners because the state has budget troubles (Michigan, Massachusetts, and California come to mind).
Say Michigan lets loose 20,000 prisoners before their time. Further, let's assume that 5,000 of these are Heroin addicts (there are 20,000 Heroin addicts in Detroit currently on the street). A Heroin addict will shoot one "paper" (1 gram) of Heroin a day, on average, with a normal street price of $100. Assuming these addicts are thieves of some stripe, they have to steal at least $400 worth of stuff to get their $100 fix (hey, the fence has to make a living).
So, then, 5000 addicts released x $400/day stolen x 365 days a year = $730 million per year drained out of the economy of Michigan. One can quibble with the estimates - maybe only 1000 of the released prisoners are addicts or maybe the street price has gone down to $75 - but the order of magnitude should still be about right.
Sure, it costs* a quite a bit to keep these folks locked up, but it costs society much more to turn them loose.
---------- * I think I saw where it costs Michigan $56/day to house an inmate. We, in Texas, do if for about $23. How can we do it so cheaply? Did you ever see the movie "Holes?" I think it was filmed at a Lone Star State institution...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And if we legalized heroin, it would cost $5 (with tax) a day. They won't have to steal and we won't have to lock them up.

Apparently, there is only one air conditioned prison in Texas. A few more 100+ days and the prisoners will escape by melting and flowing under the door.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
obama is trying to do what voters elected him for...........
some sort of national health care for everyone
to fix the busted economy
to make us less war like and more a member of the world community, rather than a dictator........
its a big job, and cant be done instantly
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I didn't think the economy was busted. Taxes too high, that's the problem.
I don't want national health care like Canada (why do you think they come here for medical care? Cause socialism is so wonderful?) or England, the land of green teeth.
I would rather be feared than loved.
He's doing his best to do it instantly. Look at his first 100 days.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have yet to see ANY program go above 25% and those are few, far between and seldom replicated.

Of course the person is still an ex-con with lousy job prospects.
--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The problem is govt wont get smaller, the govt pensions/benefits will remain intact even for new govt workers, and govt growth will continue to outpace and tax the private sector economy. Example, my property has declined in value 2006, 07 and 08 yet my actual property tax has increased and has no way to go down to match the declining value. Because the multipliers were also changed to ensure that govt still gets their cut even on taxed property that is declining in value well into the future. When gas prices increased, govt did not rush in to lower the tax rate on gas, they just raked in more cash. Now that gas prices are low and cars efficient, govt is looking to tax based on miles instead of gallons. Govt will get its cut, no matter what the economy does, because they can. I just wonder why they have left the Internet economy largely tax-free within the US.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

thats all accurate... except that as such a mess continues it collapses in on itself. then of course govt goes from total over bloat to zero or worse. (a 260 year cycle..approx)
Phil scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
windcrest wrote:

Actually, when gas prices increased, government revenue went down. Way down. Because people started driving less.
You're correct about them trying new techniques, though. They even have groups working on innovative new revenue streams. I heard rumors about one new scheme recently, and, while details are still sketchy, it is thought to involve blood. And stones.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you have anything to say about home repairs? No?
be gone, troll
plonk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SteveB wrote:

Actually if BO's new energy bill goes through, it will have a lot to do with home repair because homeowners must comply with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes,you will not be able to sell your house if it doesn't comply with the new laws.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you have a citation for this? Thanks, Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

We dug it out once a couple of weeks ago (it's tough to find in a 1,400 page bill)
It's in the House version of the Cap-and-Trade bill, though not as onerous as it sounds. It originally applied to sales of ALL homes but was modified to apply only to NEW construction. It includes the gamut of things down to water heater insulation.
Still, it's the beginning of a federal standard of energy efficiency and it's only a small additional step to impose it on the sale of existing homes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wow, the Fed Monster is out of its cage! That's not in the Constititon, that I can remember.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:38:46 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

What I understand is I can have Contract, under the Constitution.
Cape-and-trade would prohibit that, OR at least fail to acknowledge my RIGHT to do so.
Somebody needs to worry about TelePrompTer falling/failing and crashing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, it's pretty easy. Right in the table of contents:
"SEC. 304. GREATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDING CODES."

The section does not address water heater insulation or any other specific practice at all. It requires the establishment of national energy building codes that meet certain energy reduction targets by certain dates. It doesn't say how.
I looked at the text of both the first-introduced bill and the one passed and sent to the Senate. Section 304 does not seem to differ significantly between the two.

It would be a HUGE step. There is a reason building codes apply to new construction and old houses are grand fathered in. It is not economically feasible to upgrade even a reasonably new (say 10 years old) to current code. My 60 year old barn would need new windows, roof structure, foundations, electrical, plumbing, insulation in the walls... The foundations alone would make it cheaper to tear down and rebuild.
We would have to tear down most of the nation's housing stock. Now that's a stimulus package!
-- Doug -- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.