Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg These types of efforts need to expand dramatically, and should be a major target of federal policy under Obama.. (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/02/obama-era-carbon-policy-must-transform-old-divisions)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Coal_Burning_Power_Plant_Smoke_Stacks.jpg
Clint Wilder - Renewable Energy World (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com) - Feb. 25, 2009

Along with the economy, the carbon legislation would define the characteristics of this administration. --Ed.

During his historic campaign, one of President Barack Obama's signature lines was "We are not just blue states and red states, we are the United States of America."

But can we truly be united on our energy future? Even among the blue states, whose ranks just swelled significantly on November 4, can the same spirit of unity and change that propelled Obama into the White House also apply to the brown and green states of America?

Green states are those, primarily hugging the Northeast and West coasts, that have generally led the clean tech revolution in the U.S. in policy, technology, business, and public and private financial investment. They virtually all have "blue" voting track records in recent elections, have statewide renewable portfolio mandates in place, and — not at all coincidentally — don't depend on coal for a large percentage of their electricity. They're the usual clean-tech suspects, if you will — California, Oregon, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, etc.

Brown states are harder to peg. Think Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and most of the Upper Midwest. States that were arguably the heart of Obama's electoral landslide victory and, as places hardest-hit by the economic meltdown, clearly ready for change. But their economies often depend on heavy manufacturing, and they derive very large percentages of their power from coal — roughly 80 percent in Ohio, for example. In other words, they're very … http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/02/obama-era-carbon-policy-must-transform-old-divisions

Blue, red, brown, green, lavender, white, black, yellow? That means nothing. Heavy manufacturing, dependence on coal, dependence on oil clean technology, dirty technology: all symptoms, not the cause of America's cancer.

Unethical (not necessarily illegal) behavior in business and in government is what has put America in the depression we are now in. Casual observation of any industry (Oil, the Auto industry, Banking, Mortgage and lending, pharmaceuticals, and on and on)will show that America puts the capitalistic right for personal wealth ahead that of our countries needs, the worlds needs or, for that matter, just simply the needs of the consumer. To pull us out of this depression we must (as Obama said last night) enact and enforce legislation that weighs the needs of our society, our country and the world to temper the tendency of those in power make decisions favorable to their pocket book but detrimental to our economy, our country or the world.

We have no such check now. Today such behavior is considered a capitalistic RIGHT! Our president last night in his address to Congress over and over and over pointed out the need for business responsibility, for business to do what is right for their bottom line AND for our economy, our country our planet and the global economies of the world.

Until that happens, welcome to an America where personal profit trumps ALL.

Hi Robert:

___Unfortunately or not, the Republican response was the same old... lower taxes and less government. What the hell did they think the last $6 Trillion dollar tax cut party lead to, economic vitality and viability for the nation and the world?

___Let us hope we can move on to a “United” States of America while cleaning up the mess from our previous “Tax cut and spend – tax cut and spend - tax cut and spend some more” decades and pray we come out of the nose dive before all hell really does break loose as it appears we are headed if not already entered into today :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Tax cuts work. JFK did it and it worked. RWR did it and it worked. GWB did it, and it ALMOST worked. What went wrong? Spending. The Republican party and the Democratic party became one and the same. spend-spend-spend. pork-pork-pork-earmarks galore. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd made sure that the government distorted the mortgage industry..homes for everyone!!!
Well, now we are waking up from that national binge with a national hangover. Things are a mess, and both parties are to blame. There are very very very few politcians who are worth a crap. You may think that Jindals response was the "same old same old", but guess what?
IT WORKS!!!
Wayne, i do not know your age, but i lived through the Carter debacle. I purchased my first home in 1980, and thanks to the policies of Carter, my interest rate on my mortgage was 15.5% Ronald Reagan(who i did not vote for BTW) presided over the longest period of peacetime economic growth in the 20th century. He did it by letting Americans keep more of what they earned. Why is that such a bad thing? Whats wrong with a samller less intrusive government? Don't look at the nonsense that happened between 2000-2006, look further back. Look into the early 60's. Look into the 80's.(if you can find unbiased info). Bush was no conservative. Not even close. He was a disaster. But going 10 miles to the left is not the solution either.
I really hoped Obama was going to 'change' things. No more lobbyist influence(that lasted about 4 days). All bills on the net for minimum of48 hours(also lasted about 4 days). He is just another typical liar...nothing is changing, except spending is much worse.
Ronald Reagan said something in his first inaugural address on Jan 20,1981, and it's just as true today as it was then.

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem"

Hi Blackbelt:

___It was the Regan Admin when Interest rates were initially really jacked up to reduce inflation/stagflation and thank goodness they did so... WRT deficits, those really took hold during Reagan’s administration and continued until Clinton took them out. Back on the bandwagon again when Bush-II took over and here we are in an economy that can best be described as FUBAR.

___In the last 8-years, tax cuts have only given the wealthy more wealth while the middle and lower classes have been hammered. AMT took away any gain the middle income wage earners enjoyed and the lower income class never had anything to gain to begin with. All of this occurred while an additional $6-Trillion was added onto outr backs. The same people that are truly paying the bills in America. This was not about spending but the tax cuts themselves. We cannot afford tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% anymore. If you make most of your income from capital gains, good for you. Most do not yet Warren Buffet pays less on a percentage basis then the person that cleans out his garbage can. See his interview on Charlie Rose and his commentary wrt the deficits and capital gains in January IIRC.

___This is a bad situation and creates the feeling that those in power are there to feed themselves at the expense of you and I. They are but they hide it well... Apparently that worked the last 8-years. Let us see if we can turn the current train wreck around. It cannot get any worse than it is already given the Obama admin has been in office less than 2-months now and has had 0 impact on the economy or tax policy as a whole just yet.

___I sure wish I could structure my income into capital gains as anyone with the ability has done and will do. Why pay 28, 31 or 36% when you can pay 20% or less while earning into the top 2%? Sucks to be a multi-millionaire and be able to use tax policy to your benefit while Joe and Jane Q. are stuck with 28 and 31% rates their entire lives. Let alone the multimillionaire owes the same $20,000 per person as Joe and Jane Q when it is all said and done. I am sick to death that my I owe for my family $80,000 for the last 8-years because of said tax policies and the spend party that ensued. Tax cuts for the wealthy have been played out and its time to reduce the deficits incurred on their behalf while we waddled in mediocrity.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Wayne,
I am FAR from wealthy. just a middle class working stiff. But my taxes DID go down under Bush. While i do agree that a large chunk of his tax cuts went to the wealthy, the middle class also saw their taxes go down. Now, i do not have a crystal ball, so i do not know what Obama will REALLY do to the middle class tax burden. I DO remember Bill Clinton promising middle class tax cuts while campaigning, then RAISING middle class taxes after taking office. You will have to forgive me if i don't have much faith in politcians promises.
I do have to correct you on the interest rates. You are mistaken.
I will use the prime rate as a guideline
When Carter took office, the PR was 6.25%. It rose steadily through out his term, peaking at 21.5% shortly before RWR was inaugurated.
Thy declined steadily during both RWR terms. They actually were down to 10% after the first 2 years of his first term. During the 8 years of RWR, the actual dollars that flowed into the federal coffers doubled. Yes, thats true, they doubled. He cut taxes and revenue increased. RWR cut taxes for everyone, and everyone benefitted. I know there is a fair amount of misinformation floating around about the carter and reagan years. But facts are facts. The prime rates and federal tax revenue numbers are solid factual numbers. The biggest black mark on the 2 terms of Reagan is that he was not able to reign in congressional spending. He was working with a democratically controlled congress, and they outspent every one of his budgets that he sent to them.
To your point, i do believe that those in power DO feed themselves on the backs of you and i. Just look at all the nominees who were not paying their taxes. It's easy to raise taxes when YOU are not paying them!!

During the 8 years of RWR, the actual dollars that flowed into the federal coffers doubled. Yes, thats true, they doubled. He cut taxes and revenue increased. RWR cut taxes for everyone, and everyone benefitted. I know there is a fair amount of misinformation floating around about the carter and reagan years. But facts are facts. The prime rates and federal tax revenue numbers are solid factual numbers. The biggest black mark on the 2 terms of Reagan is that he was not able to reign in congressional spending. He was working with a democratically controlled congress, and they outspent every one of his budgets that he sent to them.


One of the basic tenets of economics is that you "adjust for inflation". Federal coffers (nearly) doubled from during Reagan's 8 budgets only if you do not adjust for inflation. Here are figures adjusted for inflation:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/Historicaltables09-web.XLS

Federal Revenues
1981: 19.6% of GDP (Reagan's first budget)
1989: 18.3% of GDP (Reagan's last budget)

... Ronald Reagan(who i did not vote for BTW) presided over the longest period of peacetime economic growth in the 20th century.

Not factually true. The 90s expansion was longer.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/573737-1.html

The biggest black mark on the 2 terms of Reagan is that he was not able to reign in congressional spending. He was working with a democratically controlled congress, and they outspent every one of his budgets that he sent to them.


Again, not true. Congress was split 1981-1987. Republicans controlled the Senate, Dems the House.

Also:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/Historicaltables09-web.XLS

Federal Expenditures:

1981: 22.2% of GDP
1989: 21.2% of GDP

RWR cut taxes for everyone, and everyone benefitted.

Again, not true. Reagan's raised FICA in 1982. Millions pay more in FICA than income, and as a result their tax bills increased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Amendments_of_the_1980s

I DO remember Bill Clinton promising middle class tax cuts while campaigning, then RAISING middle class taxes after taking office.

This one may just have a fig leaf of truth, but it's hardly fair. Did Bill Clinton raise middle class taxes? Only if you count the gas tax increase by 4.3 cents.......only about $25/year or so. Technically true, but let's be clear on the burden.

I think that's it! My job of correcting factual errors is done.

Any replies that are political opinion in nature will probably not be responded to because:

(1) political opinions are never wrong! They are opinion.
(2) I'm not as interested in the politics as I am getting the facts right.

Have a wonderful Sunday everybody.

BTW, for those of you interested in economic history.

Real, average annualized GDP growth since the Great Depression from highest (best) decade to lowest (worst) decade:

(1) 1940s
(2) 1960s
(3) 1950s
(4) 1970s
(5) 1990s
(6) 1980s
(7) 2000s

Source: CBO

Hi Black Belt:

___The highest Prime Rate was within Carter's watch with Volker at the reigns of the fed as it was needed it to wrench stagflation. However, look under Reagan’s initial watch in the table provided. Just as it was turning, the same applies today. I hope???

Date|Prime Rate
February 29, 1980|16.75
March 4, 1980|17.25
March 7, 1980|17.75
March 14, 1980|18.50
March 19, 1980|19.00
March 28, 1980|19.50
April 2, 1980|20.00
April 18, 1980|19.50
May 1, 1980|18.50
May 7, 1980|17.50
May 16, 1980|16.50
May 23, 1980|14.50
May 30, 1980|14.00
June 6, 1980|13.00
June 13, 1980|12.50
June 17, 1980|12.00
July 7, 1980|11.50
July 25, 1980|11.00
August 22, 1980|11.25
August 27, 1980|11.50
September 8, 1980|12.00
September 12, 1980|12.25
September 19, 1980|12.50
September 26, 1980|13.00
October 1, 1980|13.50
October 17, 1980|14.00
October 29, 1980|14.50
November 6, 1980|15.50
November 17, 1980|16.25
November 21, 1980|17.00
November 26, 1980|17.75
December 2, 1980|18.50
December 5, 1980|19.00
December 10, 1980|20.00
December 16, 1980|21.00
December 19, 1980|21.50
January 2, 1981|20.50
January 9, 1981|20.00
February 3, 1981|19.50
February 23, 1981|19.00
March 10, 1981|18.00
March 17, 1981|17.50
April 2, 1981|17.00
April 24, 1981|17.50
April 30, 1981|18.00
May 4, 1981|19.00
May 11, 1981|19.50
May 19, 1981|20.00
May 22, 1981|20.50
June 3, 1981|20.00
July 8, 1981|20.50
September 15, 1981|19.50

___Deficits however are a completely different story. An administration is tagged with what happens on both the tax and spending side of the equation. We have gone completely nuts the previous three Republican admins and we have to stop enriching the wealthiest at yours and my expense to bring these things down as happened in the Clinton Administration.

___An item that worries me here is the Obama administration has said it will not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 and to get the deficit turned around, I am afraid we need to do a lot more on everyone’s part then just those making greater than $250,000.

___WRT lower taxes, a family of four now owes $60,000 more on the federal deficit than they did 8 years ago. I can guarantee that that same family of four did not receive $60,000 in tax cuts. The extremely wealthy who received hundreds of thousands to millions in tax cuts made out because his or her family still is burdened with the extra $60,000.

___Oil Shale? Have you seen what is needed to get that out of the ground and processed? There is not enough water let alone NG to do it. Electric to begin with means Oil will not be an energy carrier as it is today. Biggest sham in the history of the world in fact...

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Not factually true. The 90s expansion was longer.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/573737-1.html

Well i guess that depends on who you want to give the credit to for the expansion, doesn't it?
:rolleyes:

Again, not true. Congress was split 1981-1987. Republicans controlled the Senate, Dems the House.

Also:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/Historicaltables09-web.XLS

Federal Expenditures:

1981: 22.2% of GDP
1989: 21.2% of GDP
Doesn't matter. They still outspent every Reagan budget.
But that's OK, i know from your posts that you are very liberal, and therefore i do not expect that you will agree with me, but it's all good.

Hi Black Belt:

___The highest Prime Rate was within Carter's watch with Volker at the reigns of the fed as it was needed it to wrench stagflation. However, look under Reagan’s initial watch in the table provided. Just as it was turning, the same applies today. I hope???

Date|Prime Rate
February 29, 1980|16.75
March 4, 1980|17.25
March 7, 1980|17.75
March 14, 1980|18.50
March 19, 1980|19.00
March 28, 1980|19.50
April 2, 1980|20.00
April 18, 1980|19.50
May 1, 1980|18.50
May 7, 1980|17.50
May 16, 1980|16.50
May 23, 1980|14.50
May 30, 1980|14.00
June 6, 1980|13.00
June 13, 1980|12.50
June 17, 1980|12.00
July 7, 1980|11.50
July 25, 1980|11.00
August 22, 1980|11.25
August 27, 1980|11.50
September 8, 1980|12.00
September 12, 1980|12.25
September 19, 1980|12.50
September 26, 1980|13.00
October 1, 1980|13.50
October 17, 1980|14.00
October 29, 1980|14.50
November 6, 1980|15.50
November 17, 1980|16.25
November 21, 1980|17.00
November 26, 1980|17.75
December 2, 1980|18.50
December 5, 1980|19.00
December 10, 1980|20.00
December 16, 1980|21.00
December 19, 1980|21.50
January 2, 1981|20.50
January 9, 1981|20.00
February 3, 1981|19.50
February 23, 1981|19.00
March 10, 1981|18.00
March 17, 1981|17.50
April 2, 1981|17.00
April 24, 1981|17.50
April 30, 1981|18.00
May 4, 1981|19.00
May 11, 1981|19.50
May 19, 1981|20.00
May 22, 1981|20.50
June 3, 1981|20.00
July 8, 1981|20.50
September 15, 1981|19.50

___Deficits however are a completely different story. An administration is tagged with what happens on both the tax and spending side of the equation. We have gone completely nuts the previous three Republican admins and we have to stop enriching the wealthiest at yours and my expense to bring these things down as happened in the Clinton Administration.

___An item that worries me here is the Obama administration has said it will not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 and to get the deficit turned around, I am afraid we need to do a lot more on everyone’s part then just those making greater than $250,000.

___WRT lower taxes, a family of four now owes $60,000 more on the federal deficit than they did 8 years ago. I can guarantee that that same family of four did not receive $60,000 in tax cuts. The extremely wealthy who received hundreds of thousands to millions in tax cuts made out because his or her family still is burdened with the extra $60,000.

___Oil Shale? Have you seen what is needed to get that out of the ground and processed? There is not enough water let alone NG to do it. Electric to begin with means Oil will not be an energy carrier as it is today. Biggest sham in the history of the world in fact...

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Wayne,
It actually nudged up a bit early in RWR's term, as he started to propose policies to combat it. It is hard to argue that the Carter years were not so great for this country. Hostages in Iran, national Malaise, double digit unemplyment and interest rates.
The amount of spending that comes from Washington is just insane, and under Obama so far it is just getting worse. The states are begining to grumble about federal government overreaching states rights. The federal government is too big, too expensive, too intrusive, and too inefficient. The 2 party system is pretty much broken. It is always obvious to me when a politcian is telling me a lie
Their lips move.
But i fear i have led the thread off in a different direction, and for that i apologize. We were originally talking about Carbon policies.
One thing to keep in mind when looking at this, and cap and trade. Companies (and utilities) do not pay taxes. People do. Cap and trade will not have much of an effect on anything, except utility bills. Hold on to your wallets.

Doesn't matter. They still outspent every Reagan budget. But that's OK, i know from your posts that you are very liberal, and therefore i do not expect that you will agree with me, but it's all good.

Hi Blackbelt,

I am indeed, but I try to refrain from overtly political posts. I'm mainly just interested in correcting factual errors. I'm a thread ref. ;)

It is hard to argue that the Carter years were not so great for this country. Hostages in Iran, national Malaise, double digit unemplyment and interest rates.


Interest rates were much higher in the 80s.

Again, one must always adjust for inflation. A nominal interest rate of 11% sounds high, but that's pretty darn good when inflation is 11% as well! An analysis of REAL interest rates is what is required.

And it will probably not come as any shock that real interest rates were not high in the late 70s. In fact, they were low. Too low! That's the whole problem! A lax, pre-Volcker Federal Reserve was continually reluctant to put the clamp on post-Vietnam era inflation, and as a result borrowing was cheap and easy, and inflation was a problem. Here a chart of the real fed funds rate from 1960 to today:

http://www.pcasd.com/images/realrates0808.gif

You can see how borrowing (for a home, car, or whatever) was so advantageous from the 1974 recession to the Volcker strong medicine after Reagan's election.

And notice the 1980s. Not only are Volcker's inflation killing high real rates visible around 1982, they remain historically high for the rest of the decade. Why?

It's actually a big part of the public record. Volcker wanted balanced budgets. Reagan wanted tax cuts, defense increases, and tolerated deficits. All things equal, budget deficits are inflationary. To counter that, Volcker kept real rates high..............to offset Reagan's inflationary budgets.

So how were we able to have the 80s boom given the high real rates? The answer is pretty simple. There was no boom. There was a long expansion of subpar growth. If you get out a spreadsheet and calculate average annualized growth during the 1980s, you'll find that it is worse than any post-Depression decade to 2000.

But killing inflation was no small achievement, thanks to primarily to Volcker. Reagan gets credit too, but only because he politically backed Volcker when the country was calling for his head.

Oh, and BTW. Taking out a mortgage in '79 was only a good idea assuming high inflation would continue. It did not, and that mortgage looked like a bad idea in '82.

I am somewhere in the middle on this debate from what I can see.

What I see:
Democrats want to raise taxes to decrease the deficit. They say they want to lower spending, but from their actions... (does not apply yet to the current administration since we can't view a trend, but the signs aren't good due to the stimulus plan)

Republicans want to lower taxes. They also say they want to lower spending, but again, the actions...

What really needs to happen (my opinion): The Fair Tax System (won't raise current tax levels, but taxes people that currently don't pay taxes like drug dealers) and actually cut spending.

Cutting spending isn't easy, but it can be done. Clinton actually did some of that (though I don't agree with some of the areas he cut).

Again, not true. Congress was split 1981-1987. Republicans controlled the Senate, Dems the House.

Actually I have to give mparrish gets this one...if either house is controlled by the opposite party, then the president's polices can be effectively blocked. A split house like this works neither for nor against you. You won't get biased material through, but you can expect you won't have a veto overridden.

Actually I have to give mparrish gets this one...if either house is controlled by the opposite party, then the president's polices can be effectively blocked. A split house like this works neither for nor against you. You won't get biased material through, but you can expect you won't have a veto overridden.

But due to procedure rule differences, a simple majority in the house will pass legislation. In the senate, A bill can be blocked unless there is a 60 vote majority(cloture). Reagan would have been in a better position if they had controlled the house. ALso, the dems regained the senate in 1987, so the last 2 years of his presidency it was not split.