View Poll Results: What is (are) the best way(s) to eliminate the deficit?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • A balanced budget amendment

    24 24.74%
  • A line item veto amenndment

    17 17.53%
  • replace income tx with a national retail sales tax

    10 10.31%
  • Raise taxes on the rich

    40 41.24%
  • Raise taxes on the middle-class

    7 7.22%
  • Raise taxes stealthily in the form of fees, a federal lottery, etc.

    4 4.12%
  • Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabia

    11 11.34%
  • Cut federal spending

    66 68.04%
  • Sell services to prizate industry at a profit, privatize then tax them

    4 4.12%
  • other

    26 26.80%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 285

Thread: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

  1. #261
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    What does Japan have to do with Georgia, hardly the same geology.
    That is probably why "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted a construction and operating license to Southern Co. for two reactors to be added to its Plant Vogtle facility in Georgia. The OK is the first granted by the US regulator since 1978."

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ignores Fukushima, Green-Lights First New Reactors in 34 Years | capitoilette
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #262
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    but solar won't do it quickly, and solar won't run your fridge or your AC unless you have a LOT of panels....and a battery bank for night time use...
    There was no specification that the electric car be charged quickly, so you have moved the goalpost. The installation I described would complete the charge in 10 hrs or thereabouts, meeting the criteria of a standard overnight charge (yes, batteries would be needed... does this make you prefer a fissionable alternative?).

    Buddy of mine runs a fridge and a freezer from six 135W panels (and a battery bank / inverter for overnight use). However, this, nor A/C, was specified in the original exchange (which involved charging an electric car), so you have again moved the goalpost and possibly introduced a strawman (or at least a red herring).

  3. #263
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I'm not exactly sure what all this eviroidiot talk has to do with reducing the deficit, especially when enviromentalism is a major cause of shipping jobs out of America. Seems enviromentalism is a means of increasing the deficit, raising unemployment and destroying the economy. [...]
    So, in RightWingWorld, pollution is good, eh?
    What does pollution have to do with enviromentilist? Heck, they kill efficiency and create even more of it through their stupidity. And no, it is not good in rightwingworld, at least I don't think it is, you will have to ask the right wingers, not me. [...]
    It is your argument, so you tell me. However, since you don't think pollution is good, then I'm satisfied and will leave you to ponder what it is that environmentalism is really all about.

    en·vi·ron·men·tal·ist

    noun

    2. any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.

    Environmentalist | Define Environmentalist at Dictionary.com
    Last edited by Karl; 07-27-12 at 08:39 PM.

  4. #264
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    There was no specification that the electric car be charged quickly, so you have moved the goalpost. The installation I described would complete the charge in 10 hrs or thereabouts, meeting the criteria of a standard overnight charge (yes, batteries would be needed... does this make you prefer a fissionable alternative?).

    Buddy of mine runs a fridge and a freezer from six 135W panels (and a battery bank / inverter for overnight use). However, this, nor A/C, was specified in the original exchange (which involved charging an electric car), so you have again moved the goalpost and possibly introduced a strawman (or at least a red herring).
    the goal posts were knocked down the first time the thread was derailed....
    thread is about deficit....

    I was at a party the other day and a guy was saying he was going to make a couple panels and get off the grid, something he got off the internet....I informed him that if he covered his entire roof in panels, he couldn't get off the grid.
    There is a mentality on energy issues today that is a lot like the 200mpg carburetor of the 70's...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  5. #265
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    [...] What does Japan have to do with Georgia, hardly the same geology.
    [...] the historical record of earthquakes in Georgia (Figure 1) makes it clear that earthquakes and their associated seismic hazards exist. Damages from the great eastern United States earthquakes are largely forgotten because the last great earthquake was over 100 years ago. The 1886 Charleston, S.C., earthquake killed nearly 60 people and devastated the city. Although large earthquakes are less frequent, some seismologist argue that earthquakes cause damage over much larger areas in the eastern United States than earthquakes of similar size in the western United States. Also, the greater population density in the eastern United States increases the damage potential of eastern United States earthquakes over western United States earthquakes. Hence, in Georgia, as in most of the eastern United States, calculations of seismic hazard indicate that large distant earthquakes are likely to cause as much damage in Georgia as earthquakes of any size with epicenters within Georgia.

    Emergency Managers Guide to Earthquake Hazards in Georgia
    The only U.S. nuclear power plant ever to be automatically shut down by an earthquake received federal approval Friday to restart operations after nearly three months of inspections. Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna plant in Mineral, Va., the first U.S. nuclear facility to be shaken by a quake more than it was designed to handle, got the green light from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The magnitude-5.8 earthquake on Aug. 23 rattled the East Coast and automatically shut down North Anna's two reactors 11 miles away from its epicenter. [...]

    The NRC said its inspections, as well as those by Dominion, showed only minor damage that did not affect safety systems. The earthquake, however, caused 25 of 27 spent-fuel storage casks -- each weighing about 115 tons -- to shift 1 to 4 inches. It was the first time nuclear storage casks moved as a result of an earthquake in the USA.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ok-to-restart/ (11/11/2011)
    Ignorance is no excuse.
    Last edited by Karl; 07-27-12 at 08:54 PM.

  6. #266
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    You don't have earthquakes in the United States?
    NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites

  7. #267
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill, replying to Karl View Post
    [1] the goal posts were knocked down the first time the thread was derailed.... thread is about deficit....

    I was at a party the other day and a guy was saying he was going to make a couple panels and get off the grid, something he got off the internet....I informed him that if he covered his entire roof in panels, he couldn't get off the grid. [2] There is a mentality on energy issues today that is a lot like the 200mpg carburetor of the 70's...
    1. Using your logic, then if one person lies it is okay for everyone to lie. Lovely.

    2. Yes, that mentality involves making ridiculous claims with no substantiation. As exhibited in your post above. For example, the average roof could likely fit 31 panels of 235w capacity each at 5.4' x 3.2' size each (this would take the southern half of a roof that is total 28' x 40', or mere 1,120 sq. ft.). This 536 sq. ft. of panels would provide a gross 7.3kW of output power, or 120v at 61 amps.

    Why are you telling everyone that, after adjusting for charge controller efficiency, 58 amps of 120v service would be insufficient to get a house that size off the grid? Or even 52 amps after adjusting for inverter efficiency? It may be a tad light from usual subdivision construction, especially all-electric, but with natural gas for heating, cooking, water heating, and clothes drying it should be eminently doable. Wouldn't you agree?
    Last edited by Karl; 07-27-12 at 09:17 PM.

  8. #268
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    the goal posts were knocked down the first time the thread was derailed....
    thread is about deficit....

    I was at a party the other day and a guy was saying he was going to make a couple panels and get off the grid, something he got off the internet....I informed him that if he covered his entire roof in panels, he couldn't get off the grid.
    There is a mentality on energy issues today that is a lot like the 200mpg carburetor of the 70's...
    There is really no need to get off the grid. I am installing a hybrid solar panel system that will not require storage. So when we get an electric car we will charge it at night from the grid, but replace that power through our solar cells during the day. We will be able to charge the car without any additional total usage from the grid.
    Last edited by Catawba; 07-27-12 at 09:25 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #269
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    It is your argument, so you tell me. However, since you don't think pollution is good, then I'm satisfied and will leave you to ponder what it is that environmentalism is really all about.
    I have no problem understanding what environmentalism is about, never said I had a problem with it, other than it needs to be balanced against economic needs and the need to advance technologically.

    You give a definition of what an environmentalist should be, not what they are today in practice. However, today, enviromentalist have become a polictical faction and are placing polotics above real science. They have, in the recent past been caught using discredited data in scientific pressentations, spying and have refused to alter testing methods when those methods are questioned, instead prefering to attempt to discredit those asking the questions so that those in charge of funding don't start limiting their funds. Also, in the case of many government "conferences" on enviromental issues, they have actively blocked presentation of material and persons questioning their "science".

    Case one: Enviromentalist, through various incarnations of the EPA have attempted to put limits on "pollutants" and "green house gasses" emitted by internal combustion engines, specifically those use in personal transportation by gasoline or diesel. To measure these polutants, they use a parts per million test. However, testing parts per million only tests the ratio of pollutants or Air Quality, not the volume. The theory is apparently that if you put out "cleaner" air, then you get "cleaner" air in the atmosphere and if you reduce the ratio of CO2, you reduce CO2. But this presents problems.

    Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. (Yes, these numbers are abritrary, but I do not have actual data at present, but they serve to demonstrate my point.) Obviously the first car puts out more pollutants, however, "enviromentalist" ensist that the parts per million measure is an accurate measure for pollutants and CO2.

    Problem 2: If gasoline is burned with oxygen at 100% efficiency, the only byproducts are Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the ratio, or parts per million of CO2 must increase with an increase in the efficiency of the process. Limiting the parts per million of CO2 can only lead to decreased efficiency. A more efficient vehicle could put out above the alloted parts per million of CO2 on an emissions test but actually produce less CO2 per minute or mile driven.

    Problem 3: Indroduction of "pollutant" reducer into gasoline/fuel. Ethanol is the most common of these "pollutant" reducers. When measured by an emissions test using the parts per million formula, it does indeed reduce the ratio of undesirable pollutants. However, since the introduction of 10% Ethanol into gasoline reduces efficiency (mpg) by around 15%, even if the 10% Ethanol blend reduce pollutants by 10%, the overall pollution emitted, measured in particles per mile, would increase because you are using more fuel and the reduction of pollutants is not equal to the reduction in efficiency.

    Case 2: Enviromentalis insist that CO2 emmissions from man-made sources is causing Global Warming. However, they either do not calculate in all factors or they refuse to release those other factors in their "scientific" reports.

    Even before man learned to control fire, glaciers were retreating. Those retreating glaciers uncovered more land and water. Since land and water reflect or emit more heat into the atmosphere than the ice of the glaciers did, the atmosphere warmed, melting more ice, exposing more land and water, causing the atmosphere to heat, etc, ect...Global Warming advocating enviromentalist refuse or do not have data showing how much deglacierization affects the warming process or how much declacierization is actually caused by man, they blame it all on us.

    High CO2 levels are blamed on man-made sources. Enviromentalist tests emissions from natural sources, such as volcanoes, by various methods but mostly from ground stations. When geologist questioned their testing methods, attempts were made to discredit geologist because "they all work for polluting oil companies) and no actual changes in the testing methods were initiated. If their methods are so accurate and dependable, why would enviromentalist not try a different testing method to quiet dissent instead of trying to discredit the dissenters?

    These are just some of the problems with enviromentalist today. Enviromental "science" has been corrupted by politics. Policies based upon this politically motivated "science" costs jobs and increase the deficit. One way to reduce the deficit would be to get the real science, based upon accurate and correct measurements and proper use of the scientific method, then balance that against economic needs.

    I am against these politicized enviromentalist and the 'true believers" of these enviromentalist, not against achievable enviromentalism balanced with economic needs.

  10. #270
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I have no problem understanding what environmentalism is about, never said I had a problem with it, other than it needs to be balanced against economic needs and the need to advance technologically.

    You give a definition of what an environmentalist should be, not what they are today in practice. However, today, enviromentalist have become a polictical faction and are placing polotics above real science. They have, in the recent past been caught using discredited data in scientific pressentations, spying and have refused to alter testing methods when those methods are questioned, instead prefering to attempt to discredit those asking the questions so that those in charge of funding don't start limiting their funds. Also, in the case of many government "conferences" on enviromental issues, they have actively blocked presentation of material and persons questioning their "science".

    Case one: Enviromentalist, through various incarnations of the EPA have attempted to put limits on "pollutants" and "green house gasses" emitted by internal combustion engines, specifically those use in personal transportation by gasoline or diesel. To measure these polutants, they use a parts per million test. However, testing parts per million only tests the ratio of pollutants or Air Quality, not the volume. The theory is apparently that if you put out "cleaner" air, then you get "cleaner" air in the atmosphere and if you reduce the ratio of CO2, you reduce CO2. But this presents problems.

    Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. (Yes, these numbers are abritrary, but I do not have actual data at present, but they serve to demonstrate my point.) Obviously the first car puts out more pollutants, however, "enviromentalist" ensist that the parts per million measure is an accurate measure for pollutants and CO2.

    Problem 2: If gasoline is burned with oxygen at 100% efficiency, the only byproducts are Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the ratio, or parts per million of CO2 must increase with an increase in the efficiency of the process. Limiting the parts per million of CO2 can only lead to decreased efficiency. A more efficient vehicle could put out above the alloted parts per million of CO2 on an emissions test but actually produce less CO2 per minute or mile driven.

    Problem 3: Indroduction of "pollutant" reducer into gasoline/fuel. Ethanol is the most common of these "pollutant" reducers. When measured by an emissions test using the parts per million formula, it does indeed reduce the ratio of undesirable pollutants. However, since the introduction of 10% Ethanol into gasoline reduces efficiency (mpg) by around 15%, even if the 10% Ethanol blend reduce pollutants by 10%, the overall pollution emitted, measured in particles per mile, would increase because you are using more fuel and the reduction of pollutants is not equal to the reduction in efficiency.

    Case 2: Enviromentalis insist that CO2 emmissions from man-made sources is causing Global Warming. However, they either do not calculate in all factors or they refuse to release those other factors in their "scientific" reports.

    Even before man learned to control fire, glaciers were retreating. Those retreating glaciers uncovered more land and water. Since land and water reflect or emit more heat into the atmosphere than the ice of the glaciers did, the atmosphere warmed, melting more ice, exposing more land and water, causing the atmosphere to heat, etc, ect...Global Warming advocating enviromentalist refuse or do not have data showing how much deglacierization affects the warming process or how much declacierization is actually caused by man, they blame it all on us.

    High CO2 levels are blamed on man-made sources. Enviromentalist tests emissions from natural sources, such as volcanoes, by various methods but mostly from ground stations. When geologist questioned their testing methods, attempts were made to discredit geologist because "they all work for polluting oil companies) and no actual changes in the testing methods were initiated. If their methods are so accurate and dependable, why would enviromentalist not try a different testing method to quiet dissent instead of trying to discredit the dissenters?

    These are just some of the problems with enviromentalist today. Enviromental "science" has been corrupted by politics. Policies based upon this politically motivated "science" costs jobs and increase the deficit. One way to reduce the deficit would be to get the real science, based upon accurate and correct measurements and proper use of the scientific method, then balance that against economic needs.

    I am against these politicized enviromentalist and the 'true believers" of these enviromentalist, not against achievable enviromentalism balanced with economic needs.
    We've got a ways to go in environmental protection to reach a balance. In fact our environmental efforts have the potential to also better our economy through jobs and a healthy environment that all of us depend upon for our livelihood.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •