Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In any case, the government needs more revenue now, not less. Lower taxes are not what we need in general right now. Also, the company may need the flexibility to decide when it can afford to pay dividends, or when it's better to invest the earnings in an expansion or retooling of the business.

I never said the rates couldn't or shouldn't be tweaked from where they are today. But I do think one could tinker with corporate and marginal income tax rates such that the tax-free pass through of dividends wouldn't be a net revenue drain, and I'm pretty sure it would significantly increase the velocity of money so it wouldn't just accumulate for years in corporate coffers, relatively uninvested, until it grows enough to fund the next job-killing acquisition of a competitor. Isn't that part of the motivation pointed out by proponents of the estate tax -- to prevent the accumulation of prodigious wealth and instead get it back out working in the economy again?

Here's one of those actions we can do to hold Obama and congress accountable.

We Want Real Cuts to the Military

House Republicans have sent President Obama a weird video opposing military cuts and introduced legislation to slash 10% of non-military government jobs instead. In the Senate, John McCain is said to be working on a similar bill.

Meanwhile Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has just announced the Obama Administration's position: They will oppose the automatic cuts to the military. This will mean severe cuts to education, transportation, and -- as Obama indicated in his State of the Union speech -- to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Tell Congress and the President what our priorities are:

http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/act...ction_KEY=5343

Thanks Deb; excellent points. I just added my name to the petition at roots action.

Also remember again, this contact avenue might be worthwhile for your concerns:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/su...s-and-comments

Why complain or have concerns, and not act on them?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks Deb; excellent points. I just added my name to the petition at roots action.

Also remember again, this contact avenue might be worthwhile for your concerns:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/su...s-and-comments

Why complain or have concerns, and not act on them?

Thanks, Eric. Yeah, I've used that link often.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Holding someone accountable is not the same as working toward their defeat.

I am glad to hear it.

In fact, keeping one accountable, insures that they stay true to their campaign promises and has a better chance at winning again. It is looking at him, as with any candidate, with eyes wide open.

That also includes looking at what the person has accomplished and not only where they have not yet succeeded.

There were way too many excuses for his behaviors over the past three years.

I disagree. As a supporter and a political realist, I saw what obstructions were put up by the Republicans. I think he did pretty well, considering what he was up against.

Had Bush done any of the following, there would have been an uproar from those of us on the left.

Let the taxes for the rich not expire

They were tied to tax breaks for the middle class. I could see fighting this before a recovery was fully underway, but not at the end of 2010.

Went into Syria without congressional approval

I think you mean Libya. And given the make-up of this congress, which is much more interested in playing political games than in actually trying to govern, part of me doesn't blame him for this.

Put social programs on the chopping block

Could you be more specific?

Signed into law the NDAA. Now any nutcase president can use it.

I am pretty sure that if he had vetoed that bill, this congress would have overridden it.

Ordered new and more powerful bunker busters from Boeing

Probably not necessary.

Surround himself in his administration with those who favor corporations and banking industry.

Perhaps. But I keep in mind what was going on during the time he was taking office.

Bought into austerity for the citizens, while having bailed out banks

I disagree here. He did get a stimulus bill passed. Now I agree with people like Paul Krugman that it wasn't enough, but it did put a floor under the economic tumble.

Handed over the health reform bill to the lobbyist through backroom deals

He got a bill passed that is going to make things better for people than they were previously. Again, it is only a start. But I believe the ACA will end up saving lives. That's the bottom line.

And those are only a few of the back slides and down right cave ins from our president.

There are a number of things that would hold him accountable. Number one, is to not make excuses for bad behavior and his favoring corporations. There are a number of avenues we can take. To offer a few, I suggest to call, write, and e-mail one's disapproval to the White House. Support organizations who are willing to hold him accountable because there is power in numbers. All types of organizations exist that work and gather around issues that our politicians aren't addressing in favor of the people. Take healthcare for instance. There are at least three or four organizations that work just on that issue alone.

I agree with the grassroots lobbying approach.

However, I am tired of this "making excuses" accusation that I have seen from you. I am going to give the President credit for trying to do the right thing in most cases and not dwell on the negative. While I am not entirely satisfied with how the last three years have gone, I will be supporting Mr. Obama with my donations and with my vote in November. He is far superior to the alternative, as I see it.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I am glad to hear it.



That also includes looking at what the person has accomplished and not only where they have not yet succeeded.



I disagree. As a supporter and a political realist, I saw what obstructions were put up by the Republicans. I think he did pretty well, considering what he was up against.



They were tied to tax breaks for the middle class. I could see fighting this before a recovery was fully underway, but not at the end of 2010.



I think you mean Libya. And given the make-up of this congress, which is much more interested in playing political games than in actually trying to govern, part of me doesn't blame him for this.



Could you be more specific?



I am pretty sure that if he had vetoed that bill, this congress would have overridden it.



Probably not necessary.



Perhaps. But I keep in mind what was going on during the time he was taking office.



I disagree here. He did get a stimulus bill passed. Now I agree with people like Paul Krugman that it wasn't enough, but it did put a floor under the economic tumble.



He got a bill passed that is going to make things better for people than they were previously. Again, it is only a start. But I believe the ACA will end up saving lives. That's the bottom line.



I agree with the grassroots lobbying approach.

However, I am tired of this "making excuses" accusation that I have seen from you. I am going to give the President credit for trying to do the right thing in most cases and not dwell on the negative. While I am not entirely satisfied with how the last three years have gone, I will be supporting Mr. Obama with my donations and with my vote in November. He is far superior to the alternative, as I see it.

I think we have been here before. This happens to be one issue in which we are continually far apart. I prefer to move forward from this point focusing on the issues we can agree upon. And there are a lot of them. To further this discussion, in which neither of us will convince one another to change our minds is possibly a waste of our valuable time.

Let's just agree to disagree and keep supporting one another in what we do agree upon.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

NO sarcasm there. Those who think nuclear is a good bridge, should think if they want to live near Fukushima Japan. I don't know if I want to shut them all down, if they are inspected more exhaustively than they have been in the past. Maybe a few should be shut down, like the one near New York City. Do we really want New York City to be like Fukushima? Not a good bridge fuel at all; if anything we may need less of it, not more. In the meantime, we can still use the energy we get now from the safer ones. That's as much as I would favor. The good bridge fuel is natural gas. And btw, more nuclear plants is not "fast." By the time any new ones come on line, the need for the bridge will have long gone. And they leave us with lots of waste to clean up. It's not worth it.

I don't look at nuclear power as a bridge fuel. You are correct that natural gas provides a good bridge fuel .The bridge is to solar and nuclear and these two together could provide the basis for a solid long term energy solution. Other alternative fuels could chip in to help.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I think we have been here before. This happens to be one issue in which we are continually far apart. I prefer to move forward from this point focusing on the issues we can agree upon. And there are a lot of them. To further this discussion, in which neither of us will convince one another to change our minds is possibly a waste of our valuable time.

Let's just agree to disagree and keep supporting one another in what we do agree upon.

OK, that sounds good.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Well, as usual our political process doesn't emphasize the points of agreement on both sides (we want to reduce dependence on foreign -- and often hostile -- energy sources) and instead focuses on the disagreement on what to do about it (all-in for "green" or "drill baby drill"). But by focusing on the disagreements, we don't see a base of common ground to build on. Common ground should be the foundation for public policy initiatives; from there you can negotiate the extra details and finer points.

I'm not saying there won't be disagreements, sometimes intractable even -- this is a function of healthy democracy when not taken to the extremes. But we shouldn't accept public policy that has two sides digging in their heels from Day One, not willing to "capitulate" until the other side does first.

You have nailed it precisely

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Exactly right, David. The Right is co-opting the techniques of the postmodern Left. They have become precisely what they allegedly hate. And right now they are doing a much better job of being PC than the Left is. The Left is actually moving on. The Right is stuck, again -- but now they're stuck in a particularly awkward place. Neither Gingrich, Romney, nor even Ron Paul is going to get them out of it.

I thinks it's pretty hilarious how they use PoMo-type stupidity to justify ignorance and misinformation.

Romney has won Florida with close to 50%. Bye-bye Newt. . .but he won't go away.

In re nuclear, when Admiral Rickover began the Navy's nuclear program, he insisted that reactor safety had to be the absolute no. 1 priority. He understood that if there were ever a serious accident, it would kill the program. And there never has been. It can be done!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Romney has won Florida with close to 50%. Bye-bye Newt. . .but he won't go away.

Newt will continue to throw bombs for a while until the other Republicans tell him that unless he shuts up, he'll drag down the party. At that point, he'll throw in the towel.

The only one besides Romney who will go the distance is Ron Paul and that's because he's not trying to win the nomination but rather he wants to make a point, get a prime speaking slot at the convention, and get some of his policies incorporated in the party platform.

I'm not sure when Santorum will throw in the towel, but I expect it will be pretty soon.

That's my take.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't look at nuclear power as a bridge fuel. You are correct that natural gas provides a good bridge fuel. The bridge is to solar and nuclear and these two together could provide the basis for a solid long term energy solution. Other alternative fuels could chip in to help.

Nuclear would be a bridge, if we do the right thing and not build any new plants.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Obama was wishful thinking, and I admit to being gulty of it myself. Warren is different in kind. She's fought against the credit mongers for a long time. I don't think she'll stop just because she's in the Senate. She'll also have the advantage of being elected in a state that supports her ideas. Of course, we never know how any given candidate will act in office, unless they are already an incumbant.

Yes, I'm gulty too! I agree

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Romney has won Florida with close to 50%. Bye-bye Newt. . .but he won't go away.

In re nuclear, when Admiral Rickover began the Navy's nuclear program, he insisted that reactor safety had to be the absolute no. 1 priority. He understood that if there were ever a serious accident, it would kill the program. And there never has been. It can be done!

I think Fukushima is pretty serious indeed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nuclear would be a bridge, if we do the right thing and not build any new plants.

Yes. Nuclear fission is indeed a bridge...to nuclear fusion power, which leaves no radioactive waste. Fusion, the power of the sun, is what will power most of the next saeculum..

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think Fukushima is pretty serious indeed.

Eric, usually you don't have any trouble reading what people say. This time you did. Rickover didn't supervise the design of the Fukishima reactor.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Eric, usually you don't have any trouble reading what people say. This time you did. Rickover didn't supervise the design of the Fukishima reactor.

If he had, it would have been much better designed, I assure you.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Exactly right, David. The Right is co-opting the techniques of the postmodern Left. They have become precisely what they allegedly hate. And right now they are doing a much better job of being PC than the Left is. The Left is actually moving on. The Right is stuck, again -- but now they're stuck in a particularly awkward place. Neither Gingrich, Romney, nor even Ron Paul is going to get them out of it.

The American educational system fails to teach that there is objective reality, that the means of discerning falsehood from truth and impossibility from possibility largely developed almost simultaneously in several places in the ancient world for that purpose. Those techniques may have been refined some, but they have never been refuted on the whole. People aware of the ancient discussions of what constitutes truth (if for different purposes, as in ancient Greece and ancient Judea) generally don't fall for postmodernist nonsense.

In the end objective reality is all that we have with which to judge anything. Objective reality is neither cultural, nor personal; it does not allow one to pick and choose what is truth based upon personal convenience. Post-modernism usually devolves into solipsism, a grossly-deficient epistemology. Solipsists are the problem drinkers of philosophy; they need to hit bottom before they can recover.

Last night's "victory speech" by Newt Gingrich is a masterpiece of post-modern contempt for truth. Gingrich could have spun the D-Day invasion of France as a German victory!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nuclear would be a bridge, if we do the right thing and not build any new plants.

Actually, the old plants are a bigger risk. Newer plants are designed to be small and modular. They don't require the massive cooling of a large river, lake or the ocean, and use both active and passive control techniques that weren't around in the 50s and 60s. They are also easier to decommission, since they arrive on site fully constructed, and can be removed the same way. Add to that, they're cheaper to build and site.

Given a free hand, I would begin to do an exhaustive site selection effort, install new modular units on suitable sites, then decommission the old reactors as quickly as possible. The modular reactors will have a useful life nearly identical to the technology gap we need to fill. After that, there will be no need or justification for continuing operation of fission reactors.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think Fukushima is pretty serious indeed.

Yes it is. It was also unnecessary. Siting a reactor on the coast, fully exposed to sunamies, may be necessary in Japan but not here. I say that knowing that the San Onofre plant is sitting there on the coast just north of San Diego.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, the old plants are a bigger risk. Newer plants are designed to be small and modular. They don't require the massive cooling of a large river, lake or the ocean, and use both active and passive control techniques that weren't around in the 50s and 60s. They are also easier to decommission, since they arrive on site fully constructed, and can be removed the same way. Add to that, they're cheaper to build and site.

Given a free hand, I would begin to do an exhaustive site selection effort, install new modular units on suitable sites, then decommission the old reactors as quickly as possible. The modular reactors will have a useful life nearly identical to the technology gap we need to fill. After that, there will be no need or justification for continuing operation of fission reactors.

I find this replacement of old reactors with your modular units very appealing. However, I was under the impression that what really prevents new nuclear is the enormous cost and its financing even if one were to remove all govt regulations. Rate payers are not willing to take on the costs or the financial risks. Has that changed? If so, has it changed due to the modularization that you talk about? I assume much of the cost is the insurance against catastrophe - has that changed also and as a result of the modular approach - enough to offset, I'm sure, a major hike in premiums due to Fukushima

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes it is. It was also unnecessary. Siting a reactor on the coast, fully exposed to sunamies, may be necessary in Japan but not here. I say that knowing that the San Onofre plant is sitting there on the coast just north of San Diego.

Not to mention Diablo Canyon.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, the old plants are a bigger risk. Newer plants are designed to be small and modular. They don't require the massive cooling of a large river, lake or the ocean, and use both active and passive control techniques that weren't around in the 50s and 60s. They are also easier to decommission, since they arrive on site fully constructed, and can be removed the same way. Add to that, they're cheaper to build and site.

Given a free hand, I would begin to do an exhaustive site selection effort, install new modular units on suitable sites, then decommission the old reactors as quickly as possible. The modular reactors will have a useful life nearly identical to the technology gap we need to fill. After that, there will be no need or justification for continuing operation of fission reactors.

Great post. We need a true national dialogue on an energy plan, including nuclear. The energy problem is solvable, provided enough people are willing to look at all the facts.

Originally Posted by radind

Great post. We need a true national dialogue on an energy plan, including nuclear. The energy problem is solvable, provided enough people are willing to look at all the facts.

And provided that people are not beholden to an ideal that we can go "all in" to any one form. "Green" power like solar, wind and other emerging technologies are in the mix and are probably the best long-term goal, but as we transition to it, "intermediate" bridge solutions like nuclear and natural gas are in the mix, and (yes, at least in the near term) development of domestic oil and coal. The fossil fuel dependence should reduce as a percentage over time, as cleaner, more sustainable and more renewable sources gradually come to dominate the grid.

The main reason we can't wait to develop "green" infrastructure, regardless of the price or supply of oil, is that a sufficient infrastructure build out will take many years, probably at least a decade, and if it suddenly "hits the fan" in terms of oil prices or oil supply that's too long for the market to react on its own. Yes, the free market would generate green renewables as soon as the oil situation was so bad that green power was cost-effective, but starting then would be way too late in terms of impact on our economy and our way of life. We don't need *massive* deployment of it immediately, but we *do* need to get started and slowly ramp up over (say) the course of my remaining lifetime.