Oops, there goes another 2 billion down the toilet. Push the little handle and around and around it goes; where it ends up, nobody knows.

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 16, 2013 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I just heard yesterday that the estimate for the amount of money lost and unaccounted for in Iraq is now about $8 billion.

That was a good decision, going into Iraq, wasn't it!

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 16, 2013 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Two billion... that was about 4 days in Iraq, and that's not even counting many of the long term costs (and debt) incurred during those same, isolated, four days. We had several sets of four days there didn't we?

However, investing $2 billion in what will necessarily be providing the power for transportation in the future? No, that would just be silly! Better that we let China plan for the future while we be conservative and do what we've always done in the past, so we can buy the technology from them at the price they set.

I think they found that particular batch of $8 billion that was lost ECS, but they probably lost at least that much elsewhere. But that's just peanuts compared to the big picture. As a Noble Prize winning economist noted:

"Economist Stiglitz Says Iraq War Costs May Reach $5 Trillion" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi...

That's 5,000 billion bucks to get back at 15 guys who weren't even from that country.

Even better, in the bigger picture, let's remember that these "fiscal conservatives" left about $10 trillion in front loaded debt:

"The $10 trillion hangover... Paying the price for eight years of Bush" http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/59553.html

But $2 billion invested in vehicle battery technology while oil trades for about ten times what it did only 15 years ago? We mustn't have that.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 16, 2013 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

101: "eggheads think made up numbers">>

What made up numbers?

101: "liberal boob think tank">>

What think tank? Bloomberg? I cited George Mason University's History News Network. The article in question was written by the following two people:

[Linda J. Bilmes, a lecturer in public finance at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, is a former assistant secretary for administration, management, and budget in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor of Economics at Columbia University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics. Bilmes and Stiglitz are co-authors of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.]

If you can't deal with the information, you could always try stamping your feet and smearing the source.

101: "the Bush basher is still...">>

That wasn't much of a bash, just a little poke. If you want to defend Bush, give it a try and I'll bring out the big stick.

101: "some of you know it alls, have never been in combat.To even speak about Iraq.">>

l didn't know going to Iraq was a requirement in order to point out the flaws and expense of going to Iraq.

101: "this totally idiot battery tech. company.">>

Batteries are dumb!

101: "Just remember sylendra!">>

Maybe you should begin by learning how to spell your outdated talking point. You peddle media hype and nonsense about Solyndra, here's why:

"In the media's discussion of Solyndra, less than 1 percent of TV coverage and 4 percent of print coverage explained that Congress expected that not all projects would succeed. None of the major outlets explained that most loans went to low-risk generation projects. Congress budgeted $2.47 billion, or more than 15 percent of the total value of approved 1705 loan guarantees, to cover for defaults. To date, only three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million. All three of the defaults were higher risk loans.

[...]

"Not a single media outlet mentioned that Solyndra attracted more than $1 billion in private capital and was seen by many as a promising, innovative company. And only 3 percent of TV coverage and less than one percent of print coverage mentioned that the loan process for Solyndra started under the Bush administration."

[...]

"A Long Investigation Turned Up No Evidence Of Wrongdoing. Bloomberg Businessweek's... in an extensive investigation by House Republicans found no evidence of wrongdoing in the loan guarantee program. He also noted that Solyndra was seen by many business experts as promising:"

"Bush Admin. Advanced 16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions."
http://tinyurl.com/9wtzbv5

Try again.

D.
---------
Also, to see no end of the successes in this loan guarantee program, go here and see them listed, by category: http://loanprograms.energy.gov/

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 16, 2013 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

F. F. T. you just proved my, hidden point about liberal eggheads. Thanks for the spelling class!!!

Posted by: 101stnamvet

March 17, 2013 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

101stvet, you are a bit condecending, and I will take that part of it was at me for bringing up money wasted under Bush in Iraq.

Please take me out of your thinking, though, as I was enlisted in the Air Force. I have a brother that was in the Air Force. I have a nephew that graduated from West Point and currently is in Afghanistan. Have a son that will soon be a member of the Navy for 20 years. My father was in the Navy, and one of his brothers was a 20+ year Army veteran.

I wish you could just provide any information about the topic being discussed that would support your point of view, instead of just having to trust that, because your user name implies you are a military veteran, your opinion is correct and that people you disagree with are wrong.

By the way, I prefer to think of it as remembering the past, not Bush Bashing. Not remembering the past has the potential for us doing it again. Not such a good idea if what was happening was not good.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 17, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

This topic seems to be one that can cause some to change from their normal polical posture, including myself. The reason I disagree with the President's idea on this subject is that the technology he is seeking already exists..

To quickly summerize, Peugeot Citroen saw they're sales falling every year and gambled THEIR 2 billion on one of their engineer's ideas for a "Compressed Air Hybrid" automobile. It operates just like an 'electric' hybrid in that a gasonline engine gets it started but it then uses compressed air developed from the motion of the vehicle to move the pistons. Fuel consumtion is lower than in an electric hybrid with much lower expenses to incorporate this technology.

Guess what? Evidently it works and will be available in 2016 and they will license the technology to others.

Posted by: NWAConsumerReview

March 18, 2013 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I don't want you to think, mycentworth, that I disagree with you about everything. We don't disagree all that much about abortion and we don't disagree much about what you are saying about energy research here.

What I disagree with you most of all is how you view our system of government should work. I have a degree in computer science and work as a systems analyst. I see how systems should work and how they do work.

My guess would be you support the Constitution and would like to see it followed. This is not taxation without representation. you had an opportunity to vote for president and senators and a representative. They have passed legislation to allow this to happen. They are the ones that have more information about this topic, it is why they go to Washington, to get all the information and discuss amongst themselves about what to do. They should also be informing us about what they wanted to do and what is actually being done, and why. We seldom get that last part, as they blindly follow their party's talking points and vote based on party wishes.

No one is forced to put their money towards anything they didn't want. We willing give it to the government for them to do what they think is best. Seldom is there much thought on their part.

It is exactly the duty of the government to take tax money and use it the best way they know how. If you don't like what they are doing, you have the opportunity to voice your opinion with your vote, or to take it to court if you think something is not being followed by the majority decision.

There was lots of talk back in the late 1960's about the moon rovers the astronauts used costing us a billion dollars each. Well, we didn't box up a billion dollars for them to ride around on up there and then had them just leave it there. Most of the billion went into jobs for people researching and creating those rovers. It is seldom a waste. What is the waste is not to have a long range research and development plan, instead of what we do mostly with unproductive military action about things that, frankly, don't concern us.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 18, 2013 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Mycent says "There are many that believe the fossil fuels are better."
I don't think you are aware that all the fossil fuels are finite, and that once they reach their peak (oil already has) the price will continue to go up and up.
Don't be misled by the current shale bubble.
They also have grave environmental costs, the worst of which is climate change.
But even if you don't understand/believe in climate change, mountaintop removal coal mining is ruining parts of our beautiful country and oil spills are helping to kill the oceans--including people's livelihoods and the food supply for many in the world.

Posted by: Coralie

March 18, 2013 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NWA: "I disagree with the President's idea on this... the technology he is seeking already exists..">>

No it doesn't. We need better batteries at lower prices. Even our best lithium Ion batteries have a fraction of the energy density of gasoline, and they are very expensive. The battery for GM's Volt costs them about $10,000. That's like paying $10k for a one gallon gas tank.

NWA: "Peugeot Citroen... "Compressed Air Hybrid" automobile.">>

We've been fiddling around with compressed air for at least a century. It's unlikely to be a good source of powering a vehicle for well understood laws of physics. Wiki gives a good overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car

See disadvantages.

NWA: "It operates just like an 'electric' hybrid in that a gasonline engine...">>

Right, so like with my Prius, it still gets all of it's energy from gasoline. It manages to recapture some of it's forward motion energy from braking. It's unlikely that compressing air will be as efficient as charging a battery, but they might be able to improve on it a bit. On the other end, electric motors operate at about 92% efficiency or more, it's going to be hard to beat that.

NWA: "Fuel consumtion is lower than in an electric hybrid with much lower expenses to incorporate this technology.">>

Well, that's the claim. I've been watching this topic for years (used to have a retail store selling electric vehicles) and alternative energy systems are *rife* with pie in sky exaggerated claims.

NWA: "Evidently it works and will be available in 2016...">>

I wish them luck. They might be able to improve on the electric hybrid numbers a little bit, and that would be nice, but it's not going to be a game changer. Poor energy density.

Here is a typical article on the Peugeot efforts:

http://www.gizmag.com/peugeot-citroen...

Having seen so many of these optimistic articles over the years, I believe very little of it. We've had electric hybrids for 15 years and they are getting better and better. They'll have to work the bugs out of this method and they have some physics problems working against them.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 18, 2013 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

It is not and should never be the role of government to "invest" in automotive or any other technology (except military defense). It is not their role to pick winners and losers. The marketplace does that efficiently and very well. Free markets equal freedom. Government mandate equal subjugation.

When government tries their rare successes are always greatly outnumbered by their expensive failiures. It is innovation and engineering (like the compressed air motor) that leads to solutions, not government. Government more often than not is the problem. A very expensive and wasteful problem at that.

A scientist, engineer, or inventor Obama is not. He is a socialist adept only at very effectively using political tactics and liberal gibberish to fool people. He is particularly adept at blaming others for his own failures.

I'm still waiting for a solar powered Air Force One and a Telsa limosine. I wonder what his little trip to Chicago cost the taxpayer?

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 19, 2013 at 12:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

this completely ignores the use of methane that the rest of the world is going full speed ahead on and has for years, and methane is a renewable resource.

Posted by: Oldearkie

March 19, 2013 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jeffieboy says "Free markets equal freedom."
What do monopolies equal?(Monopoly defined as dominant market share; there are also shared monopolies where 2 or 3 companies run the show.)
Microsoft, Intel, Google, monsanto, Quanta, AT&T, Motorola, etc.
Meatpacking, petfood, cereals, phaarmaceuticals...
Here's a list of new technology companies with a huge market share: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03...
More examples from Forbes magazine: http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/13/mono...
An attempt by small clean energy companies to break into the big utility market:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/201...
Another list: http://www.cracked.com/article_18845_...

Posted by: Coralie

March 19, 2013 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mycentworth, what does your common sense tell you about borrowing when interest is low and you are not very close to your credit limit, and you really need to fix the leak in the roof, but have no other expenses to cut?

How does taxing the rich hurt us? Especially if it is used to balance the budget?

Who is saying the rich are the enemy? Taxing does not make someone the enemy.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 19, 2013 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ECS: "...if it has an engine that uses solar power to drive it, it isn't a glider.">>

It's kind of a combo deal and pretty much built on a glider frame:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162...

Here's another attempt:

http://inhabitat.com/worlds-first-two...

Looks like a glider, which makes sense.

ECS: "you may want to think a bit more on he need to have solar power on a glider.">>

I don't we need to have it on a glider. But because such little energy falls per square meter and planes are energy hogs, the first solar planes are necessarily going to be variations of gliders.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 19, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I don't know if Jeffieboy was able to invest much time in expunging his blinding ignorance when he was still responsible for toxic chemical spills at George's, but he certainly isn't doing so now that he's retired.

RE "It is not and should never be the role of government to iinvest' in automotive or any other technology (except military defense)."
Remember the development of canal systems in the northeast, and the creation of the transcontinental railroads and national highway systems? Making technology viable is part of the investment in technology. Of course the interstate highway system is, technically, military technology (the idea stolen from Nazi Germany and enacted by a Republican president), so there is no reason why the GOP should be so averse to investment in this and similar infrastructure that affect our national security.

RE "A scientist, engineer, or inventor Obama is not."
Just a reminder: for our purposes, he also is not the head of a household or the CEO of a business.

RE "He is a socialist..."
What is your evidence for this? (Note: the hysteria about socialism came long after the U.S. government started dabbling in socialism. On the matter of socialism, you'll have to place Obama in the context of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Nixon, Reagan and the lesser Bush.)

RE "...adept only at very effectively using political tactics and liberal gibberish to fool people."
His political tactics and use of gibberish are exceeded by the GOP and Faux News. As you connect the two, does that make them even more socialist than Obama?

RE "He is particularly adept at blaming others for his own failures."
So you should be able to provide a long list of failures that Obama alone is responsible for.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 19, 2013 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ECS: "for someone with "free thinker" in your user name,">>

I don't have "free thinker" in my user name, it's actually one word.

ECS: "It is fine that they built these things on a glider frame, and even if the people building them call them gliders,">>

So people can build gliders, and call them gliders, but if they add an option that it can have some solar electric assist, then suddenly, according to your strict semantic rules, the word glider can no longer be associated with the plane? That's absurd.

ECS: "A glider doesn't have an engine.">>

Some of them do. My dad has one. It has an engine and can fly around or he can turn off the engine and glide. Planes come in a lot of varieties and you don't get to enforce their taxonomy.

ECS: "Put an engine on a bicycle, and it still kind of looks like a bicycle, but it is no longer just a bicycle.">>

Excellent example that flatly refutes your semantic quibble. I have such a bicycle and it has an electric motor in the front wheel. It's still a bicycle. I can use it entirely as a normal bicycle or choose to have the addition of electric assist. It's still a bicycle. I could put a little solar panel on the back and it could be a partially solar bicycle too. It's still a bicycle.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 20, 2013 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

This is from my online book, SURVIVAL AND THRIVAL, and may be a couple years outdated:
=
"An aviation company based in Nevada is currently working on a way to utilize gravity as a power source. The concept comes from Robert D. Hunt, a theoretical physicist and inventor who founded the company, Hunt Aviation.
Blogger Alan Bellows says the GravityPlane “uses a cycle of climbing and descending to maintain its lift and forward speed, mimicking the behavior of the bodies of warm and cold air which make up the weather.” The aircraft also uses bags of lighter-than-air helium, a non-flammable gas.
The plane would be very large, but unlike zeppelins, the design is slender, streamlined, and has long wings.
Bellows says, “Considering the GravityPlane’s simplicity, its environmentally friendly propulsion, and its freedom from heavy and expensive fossil fuels, this concept could completely revolutionize aircraft design in the coming decades if it proves viable.”
There are also solar-powered aircraft. In the spring of 2009 Eric Raymond set out on the first trans-European flight in a manned solar plane. Raymond planned to tour eight countries in Sunseeker II, which weighs 292 pounds or 506 pounds fully loaded, is 23 feet long, and has a wing span of 17 feet. Four lithium polymer batteries provide power to a small electric motor for takeoff and climbing. Once Sunseeker II reaches its cruising altitude of about 3,000 feet, solar cells on the wings take over. It then cruises at 40 mph. NASA, Boeing, Pipistrel, Solar Impulse, and Electric Aircraft are also experimenting with solar-powered air flight."

Posted by: Coralie

March 20, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: "Taxes reached 50 year lows under Obama. Even the rich had their effective taxes about cut in half:"
What are "effective" taxes. More liberal spin. Just like the statement below.

"The average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.

Of course, when fewer people pay taxes, the rate of average income will go down. With more on welfare and govt. payroll, there are less people paying. We all need "skin in the game". It is a good incentive.

Spin, spin, spin. I don't need Fox to tell me what to think. I am pretty good in economics.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 21, 2013 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MyC: "What are "effective" taxes.">>

"Effective tax rate." Short answer: what you actually pay when each tier of your tax rates are combined.

Longer answer:
"The effective tax rate is often a more accurate representation of a taxpayer's tax liability than its marginal tax rate.... For example, the first $100,000 of income may be taxed at 10%, and income between $100,001 and $500,000 might be taxed at a rate of 15%. The corporation's income is taxed at the various levels, and to determine the effective (or average) tax rate, the total tax is divided by the total taxable income."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/e...

MyC: "More liberal spin.">>

No, referring to what you effectively pay in taxes by considering each of the different rates, is not liberal spin, it's just a reality that conflicts with your misinformed opinion.

FFT: [quote] "The average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent."

MyC: "Of course, when fewer people pay taxes, the rate of average income will go down.">>

And the rich pay far less than they did under Reagan/Clinton, the rate will go down. So let's just look at the very rich:

"The 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income paid income taxes at an actual, or “effective,” rate of just under 17 percent in 2007, down from almost 30 percent in 1995, according to the Internal Revenue Service. The effective rate for the 1.4 million people in the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped to 23 percent in percent the year before."
http://money.msn.com/taxes/latest.asp...

MyC: "With more on welfare...">>

Again, the Fox Box talking points you mindlessly barf up aren't serving you well. They are well past their due date and reveal your ignorance. Welfare roles were slashed under Clinton and have been on decline for decades. Look, here's a pretty chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wel...

Your welfare talking point is from when Disco was popular. Get a new one.

MyC: "with more on... govt. payroll,">>

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The government employs far fewer people than four years ago. Chart: http://tinyurl.com/9epvp5c

MyC: "We all need "skin in the game".>>

We all have skin in the game.

MyC: "Spin, spin, spin.">>

Yes. Please stop spinning. Stop regurgitating nonsense from the Conservative Entertainment Media Complex.

MyC: "I am pretty good in economics.">>

Now you just being funny.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 21, 2013 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

"Of course, when fewer people pay taxes, the rate of average income will go down. With more on welfare and govt. payroll, there are less people paying. We all need "skin in the game". It is a good incentive.

Spin, spin, spin. I don't need Fox to tell me what to think. I am pretty good in economics." - mycentworth

I am not trying to doubt your understanding of economics, but average income TAX was being discussed, and if there are fewer taxpayers, as you suggest, and the average is going down, then they are paying much less in taxes, not more.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 21, 2013 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ec - There are fewer taxpayers, but the average tax rate is made up by dividing the number of people by the amount of taxes. People not paying are part of the equation and bring down the tax rate, taxes aren't going down. Fewer people are paying the taxes, thereby those paying are paying more.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 21, 2013 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Oh dear, that weird idea of the "fair" tax again.
==
OK, say the fair tax is 20%. Take a young family making $20,000/year, two kids. Take away the tax loopholes (?), his take-home pay is $16,000.
Mycent, you want to work out a budget for the family?
How much for rent, how much for health insurance, how much to keep a reliable car.
Maybe the wife will have to get a job and put the kids in daycare. For the extra $15,000 she earns, the daycare for two kids will cost at least half her salary.
And they'll have to pay ano;ther $3,000 in tax, too.
On the other hand, we have a banker, or football coach, or whoever who makes $2,000,000/year.
The "fair" tax takes away the same one-fifth, leaving this family with $160,000 on which they'll just have to make do.
Fair is fair.

Posted by: Coralie

March 21, 2013 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Coralie, You didn't mean 2 million, but 200 thousand. What is fair to you - everything thrown into a pot and split, no matter how hard you work or how much you have earned.? If so, I'm just going to sit back and let the others work - who needs it. That is what is not fair. I'm sure there would have to be things worked out in the fair tax,

Posted by: mycentworth

March 21, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

It sounds to me like the effective tax rate would just encourage people to not make that much money. Take away the tax loopholes and make everyone pay the same percentage. That is the only fair way. The more you make, of course, the more you will pay in. That is why 70% of the taxes are paid by the top 1 or 2%." - mycentworth

How does the tax rate discourage people from making more money? I understand how it might want to make them move someplace else to pay less tax, but unless you can take your job with you, that isn't really an option.

We have a history of having a progressive tax rate that I don't believe will change. It is bad enough that the wealthy can take advantage of tax deduction easier as it is.

in 2009 the average rate for the top .1% was 24.28% and in 2010 it went down to 22.84%. There were more taxpayers in 2010 than 2009, so there were more in every category I mention here. The top 1% went from an average of 24.05% in 2009 down to 23.39% in 2010. The top 5% finally show an increase in the average rate from 20.59% to 20.64%.

All of those averages are well below the 35% rate.

The top .1%, in 2010, had 9.24% of the income and paid 17.58% of the tax. The bottom 50% got 11.74% of all the income, but they only paid 2.36% of the tax.

It is the top 10% that paid 70.62% of the tax in 2010.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 21, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Overview of progressive taxation:

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:
"A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means."

Adam Smith:
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith, the founder of capitalist theory, WEALTH OF NATIONS (1787)

Jefferson:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson

Jesus:
...making the point that any consideration of wealth, value or sacrifice is relative and proportional:
"Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.” --Mark 12:43

Invariably you find those advocating a flat tax to be the wealthy right-wing (or their horde of uninformed minions) who, because of their money addiction (greed) want to avoid more taxes. But we already have the wealthiest 400 people in the US, making an average of $270 million a year each, while paying 18% (or less). This is considerably less than a huge majority of the middle class and this special deal has allowed those 400 people to corner as much wealth as the population of 155 million in the entire bottom half. http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlenzner...

Wiki gives a decent overview of the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress...
See the list of 9 "Arguments for implementation." There are 12 "arguments" against, it but I don't find one of them the least persuasive. As they note, with reference: "In the U.S., an overwhelming majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation." --ibid

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 21, 2013 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ECS: "I am not disagreeing with you about anything of substance,">>

Yes, unfortunately I can see that.

ECS: "Generally, gliders don't have engines,...">>

Generally they don't, except when they do. And generally bicycles don't have electric motors, except when they do.

Electric planes may some day be viable (we better hope so, because the fossil fuel method is finite and it's days are numbered). Drones are electrically powered aircraft and we easily have the engine capacity. What will be needed is massive electrical storage (hence the usefulness of investing in that technology as the above article details). Solely solar powered aircraft are unlikely to be anything beyond novelty unless they are mostly a variation of gliders or perhaps mostly held aloft by a gas.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 21, 2013 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Yes, mycentworth, we are talking income tax. If the total income subject to tax for the country was $10,000, and there are 1,000 people that represent all the taxpayers, then that one guy at the top gets $924 all by himself. The next 9 people get to share $963 or an average of $107. The next 90 people, and that would be the rest of the top 10% that pay 70% of the taxes, would share $3,330 or $37 each. The bottom 50% of taxpayers shares $1,174, or $2.35 each.

Now, compared to all the taxable income, the percentage that is tax is 11.81%. So that for the $10,000 in income a total of $1,181 dollars becomes tax. That one guy at the top pays $211.16 and has $712.84 after taxes. The next 9 pay $29.59 each and have $77.41 after taxes. The next 90 pay $4.36 each and have $32.64 after taxes. The bottom 50% do pay taxes, even thought you may not want to believe it, and it amount to $0.56 each, and so they get to have $1.79 after taxes.

Which of those groups do you think is being cheated, or becomes an enemy of the state, if they are taxed a a bit of a higher rate?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 22, 2013 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Anyone with an understand of economics should have no problem understanding it, mycentworth.

Should we take your response that you don't have the understanding of economics that you claim to have?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 22, 2013 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT [quote] "No, there are more taxpayers...">>

MyC: "We all know everyone pays taxes through purchasing, etc.">>

I wasn't referring to sales tax.

MyC: "We are talking about tax on income.">>

Which reminds me of another ruse your Fox Boxes have taught you to engage in (probably without you even realizing it). That is, to focus on one tax based upon income while entirely ignoring another tax based upon income paid largely by the working poor (and mostly ducked by the rich).

Imagine a Fox Box talking head doing that! And then MyCent being fooled by it.

I am talking about payroll taxes.

As the conservative Heritage Foundation notes with the following graph, both of these taxes raise about the same amount of money for the government:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbo...

Thus in 2010: Federal revenue from personal income tax was 41.6% of federal revenue and Federal revenue from payroll taxes was 40% of federal revenue.

Both represent a substantial tax burden to the populace and substantial revenue stream to the federal government. Pointing to one, while purposely excluding the other, is just dishonest. And the Fox Boxe talking heads do it around the clock.

Looking to only one category of federal taxation is a completely artificial semantic distinction. One is called Federal Income tax, the other is, if you are an employee, a Federal tax, calculated upon your income (payroll). They both go into the same government coffers and are spent like all of the rest.

Also, payroll taxes take a much more substantial percentage of income from the working poor. This is why the wealthy rightwing wants to avoid talking about it. Observe:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-1...

And, because payroll tax is capped at $108,600 the very wealthy end up paying a much smaller percentage of their income in payroll tax than the poor.

That's why MyCent and her Koch Brother teachers want her to talk only about the category of "income tax" and ignore the regressive one that hits the working poor.

I've provide multiple lines of evidence showing taxes have been historically low under Obama. When is MyCent going to be honest, quit digging and just admit this?

D.
--------
"Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex... it's just a simple question. I went to Tea Party rallies and I would ask this question: "have taxes gone up or down in the past four years?" They could not answer that question correctly... you have to know that taxes have not gone up in the past. And "do we spend a trillion dollars on welfare?" Is that true or false? It is false. But it is almost universally believed."
--David Frum, adviser and speechwriter to GW Bush, tired of ignorant conservatives basing their beliefs on falsehoods (ibid)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 22, 2013 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I will admit FFt, that I did not know that about the payroll taxes. I will have to look more into that.

I was one that always complained about the disparity between the CEO and the lower employee. I do feel businesses keep much of the money and do not disperse it fairly. But, I am so completely against government getting their hand in everything.

I feel for the poor, as I am much closer to them than the rich. But I recognize that not all rich misuse their profits and are generous, fair people. Those are the businesses I listen to. I really don't know much about Koch brothers at all, but I don't trust Obama's goals.

You still don't touch the # of unemployed that do not pay anything. The rich cannot cover it all. We will hurt ourselves if we cannot compromise.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 22, 2013 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Many people look at high-paid entertainers and athletes and think about them as "the rich."
But especially with athletes their years of high pay are limited. If they are rich it is because of shrewd investments.
If you will look at Forbes magazine and their yearly list of the richest people in the U.S. along with their jobs you will find that almost all of them are names unknown to you. They are CEOs and financiers and hedge-fund managers. Studio executives and producers rather than actors.
The last time I looked at the list, Oprah Winfrey was the only entertainer I could find, and her wealth was from businesses and investments, not her show.
Oprah was also one of very few women listed and, while it is hard to tell from names, probably one of very few minority individuals.
Incidentally, the majority of names were WASP not Jewish--to answer those who still discriminate and weave conspiracy theories in that direction.

Posted by: Coralie

March 22, 2013 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Your're probably right about the Gravity-Plane, Free. It seems to be a glorified glider.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3060/
Nothing about it online since 2006 so the inventor probably ran out of investors.

Posted by: Coralie

March 22, 2013 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

No, mycentworth, it is not at a much higher rate, the rate would have gone from 35% to 39.6%. As those that like to spin spending cuts not having much effect, that is only 4 and a half cents on the dollar.

And from the IRS spreadsheets, the actual rate the top .1% paid was 22%, so I am not sure that their increase would be a whole 4.6%.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 22, 2013 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )