Comments on: Tears for Obama, a Bailout for “Investors”

By: Gerald Scorse

Gerald Scorse — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:35:31 +0000

I answered the last comment with an email directly to Dr. Radius. Unfortunately I didn’t save a copy, but my reply was a strong defense of Social Security. It’s a godsend for seniors, and the only reliable source or retirement security for the American middle class.

By: Dr Radius

Dr Radius — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:46:43 +0000

Obama wants to give the Social Security Administration 65 million dollars for new computers as part of a bailout bill to help the economy and ‘create jobs’. Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the planet, and this guy is now going to flush some of my income tax down this drain. I have been a forced investor in Social Security for my whole life, get a paper letter in the mail from the govt every year saying I am fully vested for the last few years, have never been able to opt out of this ‘service’, old people cannot even refuse to get their payments even if they are millionaires; they have raised the rate of retirement twice without a vote of the people, and Social Security will likely not be able to pay me anything meaningful or possibly at all by 2021 (lack of funding, size of rolls, and adjustment to inflation issues).

This is really OK as the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund will run out of assets by 2019.

I am also pretty sure that a flat tax for all US workers and companies doing business in the US would a. make more money than the current system and b. be cheaper to administrate and enforce.

Focus on the existing entitlement packages not the new ones; like TARP.

By: Don Hawkins

Don Hawkins — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:02:41 +0000

Here’s one idea. Get organized school buses any bus you can find the entire State of Michigan DC in front of The Capital one voice. The message get it together people it’s time to start using reason work together.

Just sent that to the Detroit Free Press. Maybe we can get one State at a time.

By: Don Hawkins

Don Hawkins — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:46:57 +0000

The fight will be on in the Senate next week and will anything that approaches reason on the problems we all face be in that fight, no. More band-aids and talk. During World War Two the economy was changed over quickly and could be done again. In the States GM could make electric cars and switch big machinery to natural gas and build wind turbines and help with low-loss power lines that will be needed for solar and wind and geothermal and solar thermal and keep people out of soup lines and that’s just one company.

By: Don Hawkins

Don Hawkins — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:24:47 +0000

What will do the trick? Here’s part of the solution.

(1) There must be a tax at the mine or port of entry, the first sale of oil, gas and coal, so every direct and indirect
use of the fuel is affected. Anything less means that the reduction of demand for the fuel will make it cheaper
for some uses; e.g., people will start burning coal in their stoves. Peter Barnes’ idea to push the cap upstream to
the extent possible is not adequate nor is a ‘gas tax’ suggested by NY Times and others. A comprehensive
approach is needed.
(2) “Cap & trade & dividend” creates Wall Street millionaires and complex bureaucracy. The public is fed up
with that – rightly so. A single carbon tax rate can be adjusted upward affecting all activities appropriately.
With 100% dividend the public will allow a carbon price adequate to the job, i.e., helping us move to the postfossil-
fuel world.
(3) Supply ‘caps’ cannot yield a really big reduction because of the weapon: ‘shortages’. All a utility has to say
is ‘blackout coming’ and politicians and public have to cave in – we are not going to have the lights turned out.
Will the public allow a high enough tax rate? Yes, dividends will exceed tax for most people concerned about
their bills.
(4) A tax is not sufficient. All other measures, such as building codes, are needed. But with millions of
buildings, all construction codes and operations cannot be enforced. A rising carbon price provides effective
enforcement.
(5) Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let people burn the dirtiest fuel? No. The clean future that we aim for, including
more efficient energy use, is not more expensive. For example, you may have read about passively heated
homes that require little energy and increase construction costs only several percent. Such possibilities remain
the oddball (with high price tag), not the standard construction, unless the government adopts policies that make
things happen. James Hansen

What are your thoughts on what James Hansen wrote that not many want to face.