RonD1120 62 #1 October 9, 2012 Plant that got $150M in taxpayer money to make Volt batteries furloughs workers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/08/lg-plant-that-got-150m-to-make-volt-batteries-in-michigan-puts-workers-on/#ixzz28njgoQ62Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #2 October 9, 2012 sunlight is a great sanitizerGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 October 9, 2012 No problem, he will just give subsidy money to a Chinese Company to make them. Maybe Big Bird will start his own factory since this admin. seems so taken with BB. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #4 October 9, 2012 It's a good thing that Governor Romney would never use taxpayer money to invest in a solar company that subsequently failed. A more useful approach would be to discuss whether or not governments at any level should do anything to invest in any industry. A purely capitalist or libertarian approach might be to leave such investment entirely to the private sector. On the other hand, governments at all levels, including other countries, use incentives such as loans, grants, tax writeoffs, and so on to attract investment and industry to their district. States compete to attract manufacturers. Countries support development of strategic industries and technologies. If a government takes a principled stand and refuses to use taxpayer money to support or attract any private industry, they also have to expect that such industry will always find more attractive locations to build their factory. For the "principled" government, that means drastically reduced employment opportunities and tax base. How much are you willing to pay for your principles? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #5 October 9, 2012 QuoteIt's a good thing that Governor Romney would never use taxpayer money to invest in a solar company that subsequently failed. A more useful approach would be to discuss whether or not governments at any level should do anything to invest in any industry. A purely capitalist or libertarian approach might be to leave such investment entirely to the private sector. On the other hand, governments at all levels, including other countries, use incentives such as loans, grants, tax writeoffs, and so on to attract investment and industry to their district. States compete to attract manufacturers. Countries support development of strategic industries and technologies. If a government takes a principled stand and refuses to use taxpayer money to support or attract any private industry, they also have to expect that such industry will always find more attractive locations to build their factory. For the "principled" government, that means drastically reduced employment opportunities and tax base. How much are you willing to pay for your principles? Don Don, you are a very smart guy. You analyze things extremely well with great detail. However, the concept is leadership. We need a leader not just someone with good ideas. It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #6 October 9, 2012 QuoteHowever, the concept is leadership. We need a leader not just someone with good ideas. If the concept is leadership, then why do you bring up failed solar companies as an example when both sides apparently have done exactly the same gaff? Intelligent people might see that as some sort of bias..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #7 October 9, 2012 QuotePlant that got $150M in taxpayer money to make Volt batteries furloughs workers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/08/lg-plant-that-got-150m-to-make-volt-batteries-in-michigan-puts-workers-on/#ixzz28njgoQ62 Do you consider the premeditaed invasion and occupation of Iraq a success or a failure? Being that you are a right wing conservative, which, these days means that you are unlikely to have any factual knowlege of much of anything, keep in mind that the following things are factually correct - 1. Iraq was governed by a secular government that was a very close ally of the USA for many years. 2. The result of the invasion and occupation is a corrupt theocracy. 3. The invasion and occupation killed thousands of US servicepeople and wounded tens of thousands more. Tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians were killed or wounded. Millions of Iraqi citizens fled the country and have not returned. 4. The costs for this action were NOT "paid as you go", they were hidden by keeping them off budget. The end cost for this action will be in the trillions, when care of the servicepeople for the next 40 years is accounted for. Odds are you will say it was a success. If that is the case, why are you getting all wound up over a piddling 150 million, when pissing away trillions is perfectly fine, when it is done by Rescumlicans? As far as the furloughs being a failure by the current adminstration, that is quite a stretch. The plant is not closed. Workers can be recalled if and when production is resumed. I am sure that the plant can make other batteries, should there be a demand for them. If the government subsidized residential solar to the same extent that the oil industry is subsidized, the US dependence on foreign oil would dwindle rapidly. Of course, this goes against the RWC philosophy that government subsidies to individual citizens is heinous "socialism", while government subsidies to corporations is "the free market at work". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #8 October 9, 2012 Quote] Maybe Big Bird will start his own factory since this admin. seems so taken with BB. Big Bird has made enough money to start his own plant...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #9 October 9, 2012 QuoteHowever, the concept is leadership. We need a leader not just someone with good ideas. It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover. Perhaps we can agree to disagree about that. Some people prefer a "leader" who "takes charge" and "kicks ass". Others (including me) might prefer someone who gathers facts, gets a variety of opinions, then makes a considered decision. It doesn't bother me if the president has a low-key personality. It does bother me if the president shoots from the lip, staking out public positions before getting the facts, because then they can't afford to back down even if their position makes no sense. Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" were a recent and particularly egregious example. I don't dislike Romney personally at all, though I doubt we'd find much to talk about over a beer. I just don't share his priorities, and I think some of them will be destructive for the country. All parties agree that the federal budget has to be cut back substantially. Romney's opposition to anything that would bring in more money means the budget balancing would have to be done 100% by cutting government services. When you pair that with his proposed increases in military spending, and promises that there will be no reduction in social security and medicare benefits, then every other thing the government does will initially have to be cut drastically (30% or more), and eventually they will have to disappear altogether. Some of course will say "so what", or applaud a return to government as it was conceived in the 1700s. They will perhaps eventually start to wonder what is going on when they see the consequences for public health and safety, a return to 1950s levels of pollution, erosion of our global competitiveness due to lack of investment in education and research, excessively long wait times to get access to federal courts, and on and on. So, I disagree with Romney's spending priorities: the US already spends almost half the total global expenditure on the military (US is 46%), and I do not think we should be cutting everything else the government does in order to give the military more. When Romney promises to kill Obamacare, then says he will bring back all the popular parts (such as coverage for preexisting conditions), which are also the expensive parts, without saying a word about how he will pay for it, then I think he is either pandering, making promises without thinking things through, or lying. I don't believe in "double down on trickle down", as Clinton succinctly put it. I seriously doubt that putting more money in the pockets of the very wealthy, and paying for it by cutting public investment in education, research and development, social safety nets, and so on will boost the economy. Judging by their performance to date, if the "1%" are the "job creators" they should be fired, because despite claiming an ever growing share of the national pie they have not translated that into US jobs. Rather, they pocket the dough, or park it offshore. It's "everyday folks" buying cars, buying food, spending their money that creates the demand for products and services that leads industry to build factories and hire people. Engineering a massive transfer of money from the majority of the population to the wealthiest few will reduce the money people have to spend on goods and services, reduce demand, and persuade industries to trim their work force. Romney's top-down economic theories are very dangerous IMHO. Finally for now (as I have to get back to work) Romney has made it clear that he would be much more active than Obama has been in intervening militarily in foreign conflicts, even those that are quite peripheral to US interests. He has basically promised that when Israel says "jump" he will say "how high"? No candidate for president can afford to say it, but despite the US's position as the only remaining military superpower, the US is no longer able to dictate to anyone and expect them to jump to our command. This is because the real power in the world today is economic clout, and in that arena the US is losing ground. Everybody else knows that traditional military power is a dinosaur. Militaries are good only for protection against other militaries, and such conflicts are rare these days. Countries don't invade other countries, so much as they just buy them. In my opinion, for what it is worth, money spent on ever more aircraft carriers and fighter jets is seriously misplaced, because the long term and even immediate threats to the US are economic: by sticking with yesterdays technologies we risk becoming economically irrelevant. Already our trade balance shows that we consume much more than we produce. How long will that continue before we can't afford to even consume any more? If other countries assume leadership in producing and exporting things, how will another aircraft carrier possibly help to put things in balance? I know Republicans tend to be very much enamored with the military, but to my mind investment in that direction, beyond what is needed to protect our shores and essential assets from military threats, is completely the wrong way to go. I don't think Obama is without flaws either, by the way, some of them the same issues as I have mentioned re Republican policies. However he has proposed budgets, and taken positions in (ultimately failed) negotiation with Republicans, that would gradually reduce government spending in a manner that is more consistent with my own priorities. He isn't brash, and perhaps tends to study issues for a little too long before taking action, but I think that is better than jumping the gun and making national policy before the facts are in or properly evaluated. Anyway, gotta run. Cheers, Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #10 October 9, 2012 Very well said. After yesterday's speech, I think Mitt wants to stick his shoe into the Middle East pile of dog poo more than he wants to turn the economy around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #11 October 9, 2012 OH NO! 200 workers have to go to part time! And to think all we got for all that money were 3.1 million green jobs. We can only hope they all lose their jobs as well. Where's Brenthutch when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #12 October 9, 2012 QuoteDo you consider the premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq a success or a failure? There's a certain irony in your attempt to use "premeditated" with a negative connotation here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #13 October 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteDo you consider the premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq a success or a failure? There's a certain irony in your attempt to use "premeditated" with a negative connotation here. The Downing Street memo and the PNAC plan that is still avalable on the Internet would be a great place for you to start to educate yourself as to the facts. The facts are that the Iraq invasion and occupation was a long term plan that came to fruition after the 9/11 attacks happened. Don't forget the PDB delivered to Shrub in August 2011, that was completely ignored. No action was taken after the warning was delivered. Richard Clarke's book "Against all Enemies" spells it out in great detail. The PNAC plan was executed. It did not have the results the planners anticipated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #14 October 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you consider the premeditated invasion and occupation of Iraq a success or a failure? There's a certain irony in your attempt to use "premeditated" with a negative connotation here. ... Step away from the angry/bitter sauce and read my post again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #15 October 10, 2012 Quote Quote It's a good thing that Governor Romney would never use taxpayer money to invest in a solar company that subsequently failed. A more useful approach would be to discuss whether or not governments at any level should do anything to invest in any industry. A purely capitalist or libertarian approach might be to leave such investment entirely to the private sector. On the other hand, governments at all levels, including other countries, use incentives such as loans, grants, tax writeoffs, and so on to attract investment and industry to their district. States compete to attract manufacturers. Countries support development of strategic industries and technologies. If a government takes a principled stand and refuses to use taxpayer money to support or attract any private industry, they also have to expect that such industry will always find more attractive locations to build their factory. For the "principled" government, that means drastically reduced employment opportunities and tax base. How much are you willing to pay for your principles? Don Don, you are a very smart guy. You analyze things extremely well with great detail. However, the concept is leadership. We need a leader not just someone with good ideas. It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover. A mormon, leader of a sect: That's what America needs? A mormon bishop?? Holy Smoke! An actor, a body builder, now a mormon - you guys really are living in a country where everything is possible - as long as the guy looks polished dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #16 October 10, 2012 Quote Quote Quote It's a good thing that Governor Romney would never use taxpayer money to invest in a solar company that subsequently failed. A more useful approach would be to discuss whether or not governments at any level should do anything to invest in any industry. A purely capitalist or libertarian approach might be to leave such investment entirely to the private sector. On the other hand, governments at all levels, including other countries, use incentives such as loans, grants, tax writeoffs, and so on to attract investment and industry to their district. States compete to attract manufacturers. Countries support development of strategic industries and technologies. If a government takes a principled stand and refuses to use taxpayer money to support or attract any private industry, they also have to expect that such industry will always find more attractive locations to build their factory. For the "principled" government, that means drastically reduced employment opportunities and tax base. How much are you willing to pay for your principles? Don Don, you are a very smart guy. You analyze things extremely well with great detail. However, the concept is leadership. We need a leader not just someone with good ideas. It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover. A mormon, leader of a sect: That's what America needs? A mormon bishop?? Holy Smoke! An actor, a body builder, now a mormon - you guys really are living in a country where everything is possible - as long as the guy looks polished You forgot to add a womanizer and an incompetent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #17 October 10, 2012 Quote .... It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover. A mormon, leader of a sect: That's what America needs? A mormon bishop?? Holy Smoke! An actor, a body builder, now a mormon - you guys really are living in a country where everything is possible - as long as the guy looks polished You forgot to add a womanizer and an incompetent. The womanizer was not that bad and No. 43 more than incompetent. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 October 10, 2012 Quote Quote .... It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover. A mormon, leader of a sect: That's what America needs? A mormon bishop?? Holy Smoke! An actor, a body builder, now a mormon - you guys really are living in a country where everything is possible - as long as the guy looks polished You forgot to add a womanizer and an incompetent. The womanizer was not that bad and No. 43 more than incompetent. I've heard battered women make the same arguments to defend their abusers. "He's really a nice guy....except when I make him mad". "He's really not as bad as that last guy I dated. That last guy would break my bones". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #19 October 10, 2012 Quote Quote Quote .... It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover. A mormon, leader of a sect: That's what America needs? A mormon bishop?? Holy Smoke! An actor, a body builder, now a mormon - you guys really are living in a country where everything is possible - as long as the guy looks polished You forgot to add a womanizer and an incompetent. The womanizer was not that bad and No. 43 more than incompetent. I've heard battered women make the same arguments to defend their abusers. "He's really a nice guy....except when I make him mad". "He's really not as bad as that last guy I dated. That last guy would break my bones". ?? Bollocks. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #20 October 11, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote .... It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover. A mormon, leader of a sect: That's what America needs? A mormon bishop?? Holy Smoke! An actor, a body builder, now a mormon - you guys really are living in a country where everything is possible - as long as the guy looks polished You forgot to add a womanizer and an incompetent. The womanizer was not that bad and No. 43 more than incompetent. I've heard battered women make the same arguments to defend their abusers. "He's really a nice guy....except when I make him mad". "He's really not as bad as that last guy I dated. That last guy would break my bones". ?? Bollocks. Bollacks??? Checkmate Please, do try again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #21 October 11, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote .... It is time for Mitt Romney to takeover. A mormon, leader of a sect: That's what America needs? A mormon bishop?? Holy Smoke! An actor, a body builder, now a mormon - you guys really are living in a country where everything is possible - as long as the guy looks polished You forgot to add a womanizer and an incompetent. The womanizer was not that bad and No. 43 more than incompetent. I've heard battered women make the same arguments to defend their abusers. "He's really a nice guy....except when I make him mad". "He's really not as bad as that last guy I dated. That last guy would break my bones". ?? Bollocks. Bollacks??? Checkmate Please, do try again Bollocks. Discussion about *battered women* is not the topic. Not my topic. Pls, try again and look for someone else to dispute about it. Or just discuss with Gravitymaster. Or with No. 43. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #22 October 11, 2012 QuoteYou forgot to add a womanizer and an incompetent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The womanizer was not that bad and No. 43 more than incompetent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've heard battered women make the same arguments to defend their abusers. "He's really a nice guy....except when I make him mad". "He's really not as bad as that last guy I dated. That last guy would break my bones". Really? You don't see a difference between womanizer and woman abuser? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
