Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Credit Card Companies certainly influence my behavior.

Chase nailed me with a near 30% APR even though I didn't have a late payment or overage in the decade that I had the account and, to the best of my knowledge, my FICO was always > 700.

When I couldnt get them to explain, I told them to go eff themselves and opened a Discover account.

lessons:

arbitrary decisions by corporations do affect us (point priceless)
I can't tell the government to go screw (point bakunin)

If you make every single payment on time, how does the 30% APR affect you?

I'm not so sure Priceless receives a point.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Credit Card Companies certainly influence my behavior.

Chase nailed me with a near 30% APR even though I didn't have a late payment or overage in the decade that I had the account and, to the best of my knowledge, my FICO was always > 700.

When I couldnt get them to explain, I told them to go eff themselves and opened a Discover account.

lessons:

arbitrary decisions by corporations do affect us (point priceless)
I can't tell the government to go screw (point bakunin)

I don't care what Chases APR is, I pay in full every month.Some how the IRS still wants there money

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Guess which country is currently plowing much more resources into developing domestic energy like this, because they too are overly dependent on foreign oil? That's right - China. .

Coal and Hydro, good luck developing either in the US.

Maine has an awesome sight for hydro, it was called the Dickey Lincoln Project. It would fit perfectly with Tidal Power or Wind. You fill the reservoir up when the wind is blowing, dump it thru the dam turbines when its not. They couldn't get it thru back in the 60s-70s the chances of getting it now are none. Some endangered flower kept it from happening.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Right now average consumer and business sentiment is low and slipping. If the government was to give me a big check tommorrow...I'd be happy, but I'm still not going out to buy that new home entertainment system as who knows what tomorrow brings. If businesses get a stash full of cash...they'll sit on it and not hire. Evidence? Even as companies had profits that blew away expectations the last 3 quarters and the stock market almost doubled from 6500 to 11500...employment didn't budge

That's because they don't know what their future looks like... a company spends money with intent to make more money... 'cause lets remember, they are greedballs. Now, why wouldn't they spend money? Because they don't know the best way to spend it because of future uncertainty. If you are spending money at their level then you are usually buying others companies or shiny gold obelisks which needs people to build. Bottom line is that they sit on the money because they don't think they can make more by hiring people or expanding their business.

Further, as we've noticed with several aspects of the market the value in place can be mostly smoke... of course most of the stock market itself is mostly just flash... not much substance. I don't think anybody expects the market to hit 15,000 if it gets good all of the sudden.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Credit Card Companies certainly influence my behavior.

Chase nailed me with a near 30% APR even though I didn't have a late payment or overage in the decade that I had the account and, to the best of my knowledge, my FICO was always > 700.

When I couldnt get them to explain, I told them to go eff themselves and opened a Discover account.

lessons:

arbitrary decisions by corporations do affect us (point priceless)
I can't tell the government to go screw (point bakunin)

Discover?

/points, and laughs

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

How many points do we have to collect to get something good?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Hmmm...in the spirit of the day I'll try to keep this on subject.

Lynah, I find your criticisms short sighted. Simply put, the USA needs to get off of foreign energy sources. Simply put #2, there ain't enough oil in the US to meet our energy needs. So, the US needs to get energy elsewhere.

For that main reason, you need to start somewhere. 2 Billion in loans to develop more efficient solar energy is perfectly reasonable with that in mind. Utility companies don't have the $$$ to shell out 2Bn on experimental projects. That kind of money is probably the total market cap of most of these companies. Likewise, the oil industry has no incentive to develop something with a lower ROI than what they're doing now. That leaves the government, which has a vested national security and economic interest here.

This is why I often say conservative policies tend to benefit China far more than America. Why? Guess which country is currently plowing much more resources into developing domestic energy like this, because they too are overly dependent on foreign oil? That's right - China. Think we're having trouble competing now? Wait until they day they're harnessing their own energy to power their economy, while we're still spending money and using the military to secure hostile countries half way around the world.

You're trying to lecture me about short-sightedness in regards to foreign oil, national security, and economics? About a solar power plant? That's hilarious. When you say "foreign energy sources" you mean imported oil. Period. And oil is used almost entirely for transportation, so switching electric power generation to solar won't reduce our oil imports by one drop. Therefore, your whole rant is basically irrelevant.

If Obama decided to drop $2B on building a nuke plant, I'd be all for that - but not because it would have any effect on oil imports. The same arguments would apply there. Nuclear is economical, reliable, viable in all parts of the country, and works even at night or when it rains. That's a piece of infrastructure that could really move the economy forward, unlike an experimental solar project in some remote corner of the desert.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Discover? Seriously?

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

If you make every single payment on time, how does the 30% APR affect you?

I'm not so sure Priceless receives a point.

Not that I never carried a balance; I have. I meant I've never missed a payment, or even payed "just the minimum."

Basically, I emerged from a divorce with substantial revolving debt balance. Yay. I put a dent in it right away, but it wasn't feasible to kill off immediately.

Discover allowed me to transfer the remaining balance at 0% for 12 months, and something like 6.9% thereafter (which is irrelevant for practical purposes, as 12 months will be enough. Especially with owning my car outright as of April). Not sure what others' experience has been, but mine hasn't been too shabby.

Has it *really* affected me? Not that much, I suppose. But it cost me time dealing with them and figuring out an alternative. Plus closing an account and starting a new one, generating a hard inquiry, almost certainly dings my credit score in the short term...

final edit

To get back to the point, yes, an arbitrary decision made by a corporation was a pain in my arse. I'm not, say, an antitust attorney at a DC law form, but I make a good enough living. Based on income and behavior, I'm no threat to default, even after the divorce. It was a blatant cash-grab by Chase (an attempted cash-grab at any rate...)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

It was a blatant cash-grab by Chase (an attempted cash-grab at any rate...)

Credit card companies make their money off stupid people.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Credit card companies make their money off stupid people.

Or people who are unlucky enough to get a divorce...or get sick....

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

First off, it's easy to "blow away" expectations and play the "beat the number" game when the previous year's business was terrible. Secondly, employment is a lagging indicator - companies are always slow to hire coming out of a recession because they need to be certain that business won't go back into the toilet again.

Not normal compared to what? High unemployment and a reluctance to spend is typical during and immediately after a recession. Come on, this is basic economics. Just because the recessions of '91 and '01 were relatively tame doesn't mean they're all like that.

Couple of side points...but worth mentioning. First, agreed...companies are slow to hire. That's the unfortunate point of having emergency govt intervention.

Second, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (US govt) said in Q1 2010 that this is shaping up to be the 'worst post WWII contraction on record' based on GDP contraction beating everything back to the 50s, capital investment declines sometimes matching, sometimes surpassing previous records held in the 50s, and rates of decline in domestic demand greater than any since record keeping began. And this might not yet be over by a long shot.

The only thing government has accomplished is to help create two gigantic asset bubbles that collapsed and did severe damage to the economy in the process. Call me a cynic, but I don't think further government manipulation of the economy is a great idea. The only thing that the homebuyer credit and cash for clunkers accomplished is to compress the demand into a shorter timeframe. Auto sales fell dramatically after the clunkers program ended: why? Because the people who took advantage of the program were mostly going to buy that year anyway. They simply did so a bit earlier than they otherwise would have to take advantage of the government incentive. Something similar to that has now occurred with housing: strong sales in April, and dismal sales in June.


If our debt is roughly equal to our GDP, why the **** are we handing out money to people to do things that are considered a common sense aspect of homeownership?

In part agreed to your first point...the govt did have a hand in where we are today. IMO their role was priming the pump of forced cheap credit when the rest of the economy was rather soft...while taking away important financial oversights.

That doesn't mean that government is bad...but rather bad government is bad. I can see that both the clunker program and homebuyer credit are questionable programs with questionable payoff. But I don't feel that way on many of the banks that were covered and TARP. It brought quite a bit of stability into the financial system when the economy needed it. And I am still of the opinion that in general a government role in creating stimulus is important. Again, I'd love to have the private sector do it on its own...but it just appears that everyone in the private sector is looking out for themselves and sitting on whatever they have in cash.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

So wait, am I the only one who saw the home buyer's incentive as a good thing?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

So wait, am I the only one who saw the home buyer's incentive as a good thing?

I didn't say that I didn't benefit from it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I didn't say that I didn't benefit from it.

That might be why I thought it was a good thing, I'll admit I'm probably biased in this. I've been looking for houses for about a year now but missed out on the incentive since the planets never aligned and the job situation didn't stabilize to the point I wanted.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

You're trying to lecture me about short-sightedness in regards to foreign oil, national security, and economics? About a solar power plant? That's hilarious. When you say "foreign energy sources" you mean imported oil. Period. And oil is used almost entirely for transportation, so switching electric power generation to solar won't reduce our oil imports by one drop. Therefore, your whole rant is basically irrelevant.

If Obama decided to drop $2B on building a nuke plant, I'd be all for that - but not because it would have any effect on oil imports. The same arguments would apply there. Nuclear is economical, reliable, viable in all parts of the country, and works even at night or when it rains. That's a piece of infrastructure that could really move the economy forward, unlike an experimental solar project in some remote corner of the desert.

Again with the solutions that sound great in theory but have no practical application in reality.

$2Bn develops about 1 or 2 nuclear power plants, which is a known energy resource so its not like you're developing something new here. 2 nuclear power plants does little to cheapen the cost of energy. Furthermore you have to do something with all those byproducts, which also costs. Mind you I'm not against nuclear energy, but the conservative notion that we can just up and build 100 nuclear plants in this country is as realistic as saying we'll harvest oil on the moon. No bank, nor any insurance company, will back 1 nuclear plant, let alone 100.

You're also greatly mistaken on only oil being imported. The US imports electricity from Canada as well as natural gas from overseas. The country's goal needs to be cheap renewable energy, even if it means high start up costs. That creates jobs in the US and stops us from shipping money overseas. Bring down the cost of energy (wind and water are free) and the country now has a competitive advantage over the other big exporting countries out there (right now China, Germany and Japan). Sit around with your thumb up your @@@ while other countries spend the money to develop these initiatives and you have the laissez fair philosophy that's allowed competitors like China to eat our lunch for years now. At some point Lynah, you have to stop giving away industries, or eventually there will be no domestic industries left.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Again with the solutions that sound great in theory but have no practical application in reality.

$2Bn develops about 1 or 2 nuclear power plants, which is a known energy resource so its not like you're developing something new here. 2 nuclear power plants does little to cheapen the cost of energy. Furthermore you have to do something with all those byproducts, which also costs. Mind you I'm not against nuclear energy, but the conservative notion that we can just up and build 100 nuclear plants in this country is as realistic as saying we'll harvest oil on the moon. No bank, nor any insurance company, will back 1 nuclear plant, let alone 100.

Ummm - wasn't that your point of why the govt should back solar? Because private companies wouldn't?

And don't worry, I caught your logical fallacy that you first said nuclear power only sounds great in theory, and then turned around and admitted that it is a proven, known quantity. And in back-to-back sentences, too - good job.

You're also greatly mistaken on only oil being imported. The US imports electricity from Canada as well as natural gas from overseas. The country's goal needs to be cheap renewable energy, even if it means high start up costs. That creates jobs in the US and stops us from shipping money overseas. Bring down the cost of energy (wind and water are free) and the country now has a competitive advantage over the other big exporting countries out there (right now China, Germany and Japan). Sit around with your thumb up your @@@ while other countries spend the money to develop these initiatives and you have the laissez fair philosophy that's allowed competitors like China to eat our lunch for years now. At some point Lynah, you have to stop giving away industries, or eventually there will be no domestic industries left.

"Greatly" mistaken? We also export a bunch of electricity to Canada - it just depends who happens to have the powerplant closer to the border in a particular region. The latest numbers I found (2008) showed that we had a net import of about 33 million megawatt hours from Canada, which was 0.8% of the power consumed in the US that year. If being within 0.8% of correct is "greatly mistaken," I'll settle for that every time.

Finally, "cheap renewable energy with high startup costs" is an oxymoron. If you have to ignore the startup costs to make the numbers work, then the numbers don't work. Period. The numbers for solar will never work on a large enough scale to matter for the US - our population is at the wrong latitudes and has the wrong weather. Putting money into solar is simply pouring money down the drain.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Lynah I admire your loyalty to a 'no solutions' policy. The problem is that plays right into the hands of our competitors. Say you're China's rulers. What do you want to see the United States do: 1) Go all in and develop cheaper domestic energy alternatives thus gaining a competitive advantage, or 2) pass tax breaks for the wealthy, who will most likely then turn around and invest that windfall in China because that's where their money will generate a better return?

Moving on:

1) Noticed you completely ignored natural gas importation. You were going to mention that, right?

2) My point wasn't don't use nuclear. The point was nuclear will not get us to energy independence, because private industry won't back them. Expanding existing facilities is another matter - see how easy it is to suggest solutions.

3) Your last point however was phil_dupree-esque. It cost a lot of up front money to set up the TVA. 75 years later, I'm guessing its paid off. The notion that something isn't worth doing because the start up costs are too high is dumb. In a lot of situations somone or some company may like to do an expansion that would pay off in the long run (as in decades) but they either don't have the time or the upfront money to do so. That doesn't mean if somebody else DOES have the money, they shouldn't jump on it. The gubmit has the money to push technological advances in domestic energy development. Therefore, it should as it affects economic and military interests.

4) Regarding Canada, why are we EVER importing electricity? God forbid the US becomes an energy exporter??? Nope, we'll just stick with your idea and do nothing while the other countries take action. Conservatives...

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Lynah I admire your loyalty to a 'no solutions' policy. The problem is that plays right into the hands of our competitors. Say you're China's rulers. What do you want to see the United States do: 1) Go all in and develop cheaper domestic energy alternatives thus gaining a competitive advantage, or 2) pass tax breaks for the wealthy, who will most likely then turn around and invest that windfall in China because that's where their money will generate a better return?

Moving on:

1) Noticed you completely ignored natural gas importation. You were going to mention that, right?

2) My point wasn't don't use nuclear. The point was nuclear will not get us to energy independence, because private industry won't back them. Expanding existing facilities is another matter - see how easy it is to suggest solutions.

3) Your last point however was phil_dupree-esque. It cost a lot of up front money to set up the TVA. 75 years later, I'm guessing its paid off. The notion that something isn't worth doing because the start up costs are too high is dumb. In a lot of situations somone or some company may like to do an expansion that would pay off in the long run (as in decades) but they either don't have the time or the upfront money to do so. That doesn't mean if somebody else DOES have the money, they shouldn't jump on it. The gubmit has the money to push technological advances in domestic energy development. Therefore, it should as it affects economic and military interests.

4) Regarding Canada, why are we EVER importing electricity? God forbid the US becomes an energy exporter??? Nope, we'll just stick with your idea and do nothing while the other countries take action. Conservatives...

Did I say to do nothing? No. I said the federal government should get the ball rolling on nuclear energy instead of solar. I said they should invest the same $2B that they're putting into solar into nuclear.

So you see, I'm in favor of Obama's basic idea - that we should invest in our energy infrastructure. The fact is, though, that his choice of energy source to support is stupid. I notice YOU didn't address my points about latitude and weather. Because of those factors, solar will NOT pay off in the long run - you're trying to make up for selling at a loss by increasing your sales volume. Good luck with that.

Oh, and Canadian imports are < 15% of our natural gas consumption, since you seem to be too lazy to research it yourself.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

4) Regarding Canada, why are we EVER importing electricity? God forbid the US becomes an energy exporter??? Nope, we'll just stick with your idea and do nothing while the other countries take action. Conservatives...

Because Hydro Quebec has huge generating facilities and need somewhere to sell it.
You talked about using water, where is a new Hydro dam being built? I can name 2 that are about to get taken out in Maine, where are there any plans to build a new dam to generate electricity in the US?
Also lots of wind turbines have gone up in Maine, can you tell me how much they are actually generating and how much a kwh actually costs from wind?