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.
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.
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
As a conservative, I'm in favor of some branches of government getting
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...
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
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
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.
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.
We dug it out once a couple of weeks ago (it's tough to find in a 1,400 page
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
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
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
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
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
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.