let's debate where all this money is going

#26
#26
Go nuke? It's ~$4 billion just to build a nuclear plant, much less the ongoing costs behind maintaining one.

We're trying to keep the overhead down here, joevol, and we're more worried (and rightfully so) about fixing things in the short term by implementing low initial cost, but viable long-term solutions.

I'm not arguing against nuclear at all, but now is not the time to try to implement it... it would be like sprinting at the start of a marathon.

i understand the short term goal, but funding windmills will still take time to build as would a nuke plant. however, the nuke plant will eventually be able to sustain itself when it starts selling power to homes companies.

i don't think windmills will be able to produce the power or the financial return as nuke plant will. the windmills will continuously need government funds to offset the loss.
 
#28
#28
My only question would be how economically profitable would it be?

it's the lowest cost producer of any form of power production (sans geothermal which isn't easy to find). as for an actual number i don't have it off the top of my hed.
 
#29
#29
My only question would be how economically profitable would it be?

not sure, the navy saves millions and millions with nuke. replace a reactor every 8-10 years. that's a lot of gas and coal saved.

have you guys ever shoveled coal for an aircraft carrier? its worth nuke just for that.
 
#30
#30
economic rescue: What's on the table - jan. 26, 2009


construction projects: $90 billion.
ok with me. At least is going to something that is tangible.

wish it were going to get into the economy sooner, but since presumably all projects open to bid and study before implementation, seems to me likely minimum 2 years before any of that actually goes anywhere.


education: $142 billion
we already waste billions of dollars on education. Why not throw $142 billion more down the drain.


as i read the story, its to rebuild some delapidated ones and update technology, so beg to differ. Having said that, still seems like too long to make it into the economy for same reasons as infrastructure.


renewable energy: $54 billion
on the surface not a problem until i read this "double production of alternative energy in the next three years. weatherize low-income homes, modernize 75% of federal buildings and update the nation's electrical grid with a new, cost-efficient "smart" grid." sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me.

why did you italicize "weatherize low income homes?" and are you actually opposed to it?


health-care records: $20 billion
good idea if it works. I'm not sure how this will really help the economy.


it is a good idea but has nothing to do with stimulus. Formalizing medical records is the first step to a national health care system.


science, research and technology: $16 billion
like the renewable energy another black hole. Where exactly is this money going? If used properly maybe it helps.

seems like a good idea to me.


medicaid: $87 billion
brilliant. Let's add more money to something that needs to be cut by 50%.


expanding existing services and broadening its scope. Those of you who think that "socialism" is bad in all forms, take note of this one.



law enforcement: $4 billion
see medicaid


not sure i see how the two compare.


unemployment benefits: $43 billion
makes sense from a stimulus sense.

probably necessary under the circumstances. But see my note about socialism.




cobra: $39 billion
indifferent. What's another $39 bill


socialism.


feeding the hungry: $20 billion
payoff to obama's buddies. No way $20 bill goes directly to the poor.


i agree that this one needs major oversight to ensure that the dollars are spent on actual programs and not "administrative fees" by providers.



middle-class tax cut: $145 billion
now we are getting somewhere. It is nice to know obama thinks anyone making over $75k is rich and doesn't need a tax cut.


what happened to $200k?


low-income tax cut: $5 billion
how do you cut taxes to people not paying any?\


its stimulus. It actually makes sense as for sure that money will get spent.



child tax credit: Up to $18 billion
right let's encourage more people to have children who can't afford to have them.


i doubt anyone these days intentionally plans to have a child to get a tax credit. Legitimate stimulus. You just don't like who is going to get it.


small business write-offs and tax cuts for companies suffering losses: Up to $17 billion
makes sense.


mine makes a little profit. I'd like some tax cuts, too.


see above.
 
#31
#31
low income people shouldn't have homes, LG, let alone get government subsides to "weathorize" them. this american theory that everyone deserves to own a home despite income level is exactly what got us in the this trouble in the first place.
 
#32
#32
]low income people shouldn't have homes[/B], LG, let alone get government subsides to "weathorize" them. this american theory that everyone deserves to own a home despite income level is exactly what got us in the this trouble in the first place.

Depends on what you define as low income.
 
#35
#35
If you can't afford the upkeep on your home or get financing to pay for the upkeep on your home odds are you shouldn't own one.

I agree with you on that. But, you can't just leave homeless people on the streets though. I've always thought that you could provide low income apartments, that could be rented out for an exorbitantly low amount. (No, I'm not talking Section 8 Public Housing)
 
#37
#37
I agree with you on that. But, you can't just leave homeless people on the streets though. I've always thought that you could provide low income apartments, that could be rented out for an exorbitantly low amount. (No, I'm not talking Section 8 Public Housing)

so build more projects? That's working so well already
 
#41
#41
Obama himself has called this "emergency" legislation and urged congress to focus on "emergency" spending/tax cuts.

A big beef for me here is that much of this (e.g. research spending) might be fine and dandy but it's not "emergency" by any means. Let that stuff go through the standard appropriations process (you know the one we've had for over 200 years) and stand on it's own merits. Instead, it's packaged in and if you vote against it you are labeled an obstructionist at a time of national emergency.
 
#42
#42
Obama himself has called this "emergency" legislation and urged congress to focus on "emergency" spending/tax cuts.

A big beef for me here is that much of this (e.g. research spending) might be fine and dandy but it's not "emergency" by any means. Let that stuff go through the standard appropriations process (you know the one we've had for over 200 years) and stand on it's own merits. Instead, it's packaged in and if you vote against it you are labeled an obstructionist at a time of national emergency.

That is the way it has worked for some time now, especially in the past 15 to 20 years. IMHO this would be a perfect place for Obama to institute his "change". Tacking garbage on to important bills needs to stop.
 
#43
#43
Yes, but I'm talking about nuclear power plants furnishing over 70% of the power supply, like the French. We don't have the money for that at this point in time. I like nuclear power, I really do. The technology has came a long was since Chernobyl, and it is a relatively clean source of power. However, did you not just mention that a single NPP costs $4 billion dollars to build?

We also need to make cookie cutter NPP like the French and quit designing each one from the ground up. That would save millions in construction costs.
 
#44
#44
We also need to make cookie cutter NPP like the French and quit designing each one from the ground up. That would save millions in construction costs.

Areva is currently doing that in the US. I think they have a few waiting on gov't licensing at the moment (the biggest holdup).
 
#45
#45
That is the way it has worked for some time now, especially in the past 15 to 20 years. IMHO this would be a perfect place for Obama to institute his "change". Tacking garbage on to important bills needs to stop.


Now we get into the debate about the line item veto. Funny, whenever a Democract is President, the Republicans oppose the line item. Whenever a Republican is President, its the Democrats who protest it.

I personally think we should have it and subject it to veto overrides just like anything else. Would make the stakes for presidnet that much higher, but these pork bills are getting just absurd. Have been for awhile.
 
#46
#46
Now we get into the debate about the line item veto. Funny, whenever a Democract is President, the Republicans oppose the line item. Whenever a Republican is President, its the Democrats who protest it.

I personally think we should have it and subject it to veto overrides just like anything else. Would make the stakes for presidnet that much higher, but these pork bills are getting just absurd. Have been for awhile.

I do support the LIV - but let's not forget that much of this bill really is BO's plan.

Not sure what he would cut but I do give him credit for having the contraceptive $ taken out.
 
#47
#47
Now we get into the debate about the line item veto. Funny, whenever a Democract is President, the Republicans oppose the line item. Whenever a Republican is President, its the Democrats who protest it.

I personally think we should have it and subject it to veto overrides just like anything else. Would make the stakes for presidnet that much higher, but these pork bills are getting just absurd. Have been for awhile.

Not putting this on BO alone. It has been a huge problem but as stated by another poster much of this is his design. Repubs and Dems alike are responsible it will continue unless someone says enough is enough.
 
#49
#49
I do support the LIV - but let's not forget that much of this bill really is BO's plan.

Not sure what he would cut but I do give him credit for having the contraceptive $ taken out.

Not putting this on BO alone. It has been a huge problem but as stated by another poster much of this is his design. Repubs and Dems alike are responsible it will continue unless someone says enough is enough.


Let's not pretend that the current bill is the only one, or even the worst, in terms of sketchy appropriations. Been a problem for decades. The last spending bill under Bush had far goofier crap in it. Remember the money for the archery industry to secure a couple of votes for the bill?
 
#50
#50
Let's not pretend that the current bill is the only one, or even the worst, in terms of sketchy appropriations. Been a problem for decades. The last spending bill under Bush had far goofier crap in it. Remember the money for the archery industry to secure a couple of votes for the bill?

maybe so, but this is supposed to be a STIMULUS bill, not an appropriations bill.
 

VN Store



Back
Top