This is my issue. My spouse has gone inactive for months at a time. I'm not asking for the property. Just give me access to pay in the owners place, buy upgrades and use the upgrades (vault). I mean hell, we are married in the game.
I have always made sure there is enough there for Auto withdraw.
This is my issue. My spouse has gone inactive for months at a time. I'm not asking for the property. Just give me access to pay in the owners place, buy upgrades and use the upgrades (vault). I mean hell, we are married in the game.
I have always made sure there is enough there for Auto withdraw.
Crazywhiteboy ~ Keystone would create 35 permanent jobs and untold amounts of environmental damage
Obviously construction has an end goal.
Over two construction seasons, the main beneficiaries of the project would be Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska each would need to hire between 2,700 and 4,000 construction workers. - Washington post
Those numbers also left out supplies needed. Keystone XL has supported more than 7000 jobs from the billions spent in sourcing the goods and services in North America.
Either way, government job creation usually involves killing a lot more jobs elsewhere. Which is the approach that Rand and others have. Our view on job creation is getting the government out of the way. Our policy is not anti-jobs; it's leaving it in the hands of the people, who can do it better then a corrupt bureaucracy. Government at work in Solyndra ring a bell?
Crazywhiteboy ~ untold amounts of environmental damage
I'm not going to de-rail this into the make Al gore a billionaire scam. But if you are worried about carbon pollution, the current method of train or cargo ship uses a lot more carbon then a pipeline would. Canada is not just going to site on it's resource. It will ship the product to other countries that have less efficient refining methods and produce more pollution.
Renewable energy isn't where it needs to be yet. Cheap energy, like oil, is what has allowed our economy to thrive. Access to energy is what allows us to innovate and create. Cheap energy now, is what will allow us to develop renewable energy into what it needs to be. It will allow us to do it and a lot faster. Give about 10 years, an we can probably power a house on a single panel.
Al Gore The Ice caps will be gone - http://www.sott.net/article/284858-Al-Gore-predicted-Arctic-would-be-ice-free-Ice-cap-now-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-more-than-2-years-ago
Quickdraw5 - fossil fuel companies so they make a big deal about how it will "hurt our economy", which just isn't true.
Are you forgetting the drag that $4 a gallon of gas was?
Or what increased electric rates do? Obama even said it would make prices skyrocket.
Coal = 39% Natural gas = 27% Nuclear = 19% Hydropower = 6% Other renewables = 7% Biomass = 1.7% Geothermal = 0.4% Solar = 0.4% Wind = 4.4% Petroleum = 1% Other gases < 1%
Tolshortte ~ " im all for ending the corporate crutch but ive also said supporting your local businesses is the way to go?"
Corporate welfare is only part of the problem. The other part is over regulation. I'm not talking about eliminating all regulation, not dumping toxic waste in the river is good thing to keep.
The new estimate from NAM/Crain and Crain turns out to be $2.028 trillion annually.
There are some tax breaks that I can agree are ok, but taken with mass amounts of scrutiny. Tech companies like Apple and Google don't need tax breaks. If companies like those come and go, we will just have a hic up or 2 in the economy. However, if energy companies, those that we use to get to work and heat our homes, collapse. People can die from that.
Cheap energy is a national interest. For that group, there should be no tax break the big guys get, that an upstart does not have the same access to. The government cannot be allowed to pic winners and losers. And regulation should not be so heavy, that you can't get into the game. If you are not seeing frequent upstarts and some growing to challenge the big guys, you have to much regulation. Take the cable industry for example. Everyone hates Comcast and TimeWarner. Yet how many local cable companies can you name? It costs to much to get in, so we have government guarded monopoly.
TL;DR 1. No tax breaks allowed, that an upstart cannot access. Everyone gets it or no-one does. 2. Regulations should not prevent or hinder upstarts. If your not seeing new entries on a regular basis, you have to much.
Sparhawk ~ "2. Capitalism is not self-sustaining"
It more sustaining then any other system. The more a country embraces Capitalism the better they do. The problem we have today, is that we don't have a true free market. Rather then innovate, companies lobby the government to make laws that kill competition. Corporate Capitalism is not capitalism at all.
You complain - He didn't bring jobs home Next breath, you complain that he tried to pass something that would create jobs - Keystone pipeline.
You complain that - he voted against infrastructure Except for your previous complaint - He voted for the infrastructure of the keystone pipeline.
Yes, I'm sure the list can go on.......
Obama did so many roads and bridges, that he he couldn't make that exact same promise a 2nd time when running for reelection. Oh, wait he did. And when asked all the jobs from his 1st promise where - "Well they weren't as shovel ready as we thought" LOL ~ Obama
How can you not be "shovel ready" to repair a *&@*& road?
HELL NO - to Jeb Bush. Even if you put a gun to my head, I'll write in Rand Paul before I vote for him. I don't care how they try to fear monger about the Dem winning. No more establishment and big government cronies. Same with Rubio, he fits in with Jeb. I can't stand those that want to shred our Rights, with NSA spying.
Who I think will win - It's a toss between Ted Cruz and Scott Walker. I would like for Rand to win. But the problem is that a lot of his support is outside the Republican party. Which hurts his primary votes.
crazywhiteboy - "Republican that wants to smoke weed"
Never before have I seen a comment with so much insight. It's obvious that you have given this with much deep thought, after looking at all the perspectives. You listened to both sides and the individual themselves. Not just relying on what a single minded media says. You have shown me the error of my narrow minded ways....
Quickdraw5 - "That is a ridiculous metaphor that doesn't apply at all here. We are talking about political ideas in the country that we both live in so even though I think the libritarian movement is BS doesn't mean I don't understand it."
And yet the more I listen to you, the more I am convinced that you don't understand. Not because you don't agree, but because of the things you think I believe or mean. You steam-rolled over and dismissed my example of the schools. But the point I was making is correct. Your definition of privet school was off, and what you thought was a reasonable argument actually did not have relation to the issue. After I pointed out the difference you changed your argument. But the concept that you are studying to understand something and using different perception filters then the people you are trying to understand, does not seem to be getting through.
I don't think this is limited to just the school example.
(6.A) Education I read your link, and I can give you studies that show privet schools score better on ACT and SAT. I can tell you from personal experience. I've been in Public and Privet schools both in NY and Florida. Pound for pound, privet does better at teaching. Are there good Public schools, yes. But they also get a ton more money then the average Public school. Likewise a more well funded Privet school will do better, usually more efficiently. But rather than link war, lets go with concept. Which I think you are still not getting.
The Rand Paul issue, is that you think we want to cut funding for education
That is not what we are doing. We are talking about eliminating the federal layers of bureaucracy, and returning that power and money to the people and states. Instead of the money automatically going to public schools and parents needing to raise additional money if they want something else. Start off with the parents having the money and deciding where they want to go. (possibly something like a voucher) If the previously public school is offering a good education, then the parents can still send their kids there. If the public school was not running well, the parents would have the money (voucher) to send their kids else where. It would do a lot to clean up the under performing schools, and better enable you to elevate your standard of education. A parent now sending their kid to a $10,000 (just their money) privet school. Would then have the ability to send their kid to a $20,000 privet school (voucher plus their money).
(8) Term limits "Term limits would be great for congress, but will rand step down from congress after this term and really stand behind that? I doubt it "
So you want the politician to volunteer and step down BEFORE he gets the bill passed, that requires all of them to step down? That sounds like a very bad straw man argument. This issue should be make or break on all upcoming elections. I don't care if they shit gold, you don't support it, you are out. When the time comes to vote on it, and they vote no; immediate recall.
Sorry Kuro, I felt that Quick was trying to group Rand into the Repub establishment field. My intention was trying to explain the difference between Rand and the standard Republicans.
We can take that to a different thread, if he wants to continue. I suppose.
We can come back to the other points but I think it is best we start with 6.
(6) Considering that I am from that movement, and feel strongly misunderstood. Might show that there is some kind of discrepancy in your information or the way you digest it? It's like studying for years about a country, going there and telling the natives that they are practicing their native culture wrong. "That a real native would practice his culture this way".
Example: You study the foreign counties education system and make this statement. "The reason that private schools are better is because they have a lot more money due to the students being rich, so that is a poor example. "
The native looks at you with - WTH are you talking about? I'm guessing when you hear the term Privet school, you are thinking of a boarding school? Or are you referring to $10,000 as Rich?
We are using the same words, but our understanding of it's definition seems to be different. If you study my beliefs but have different definitions, then your understanding of my belief would be wrong. Because I felt so misunderstood, I assumed you had not really looked into things. Per your statement (minus explicative), I'm now thinking that the definitions you studied with are different then mine. Agree/disagree?
Where there is a possible break down in communication for us: I'm going to guess that you are not talking about boarding school, but that $10,000 for cost is rich. What I perceive as your perspective on the situation would be something like - who has 10k a year to spend on their kid?
Libertarian-ish/Conservative prospective: Public schools are not free. The government does not have any money it did not take from us. The 12k that the government spends on Public schools is ours to begin with. Get the inefficient Fed Bureaucracy out. Give it back to the people and states. You can get a better education and pay less for it, the facts are above.
Privet schools are not rich, boarding schools yes, privet no. The majority of privet schools run on a strict budget and are very accountable to the parents that send their kids there. I've been to Public, privet and home schools. When I lived out in backwater country land, the privet school I attended shut down for lack of $$ (very poor community, the school ran mostly on volunteer). Almost everyone that transferred to the local public school, scored 1 or 2 grades higher then where they were. They also flooded the honors list the next year. The Public school was not bad, it meet national standards. It's just the difference in quality of eduction. Which it is possible to do for $1-2k in a home school as well.
P.S. The reply box is to dam small.
Edit: updated public school link. The 1st was a Public/privet mix
Kuroneko - "He's really a libertarian, just don't let the Republicans know that."
Those that are political zombies (both Dem and Rep) aside. Republicans know he is libertarian. He is not full libertarian, but the majority of his policy is Libertarian-ish. And actually, the Libertarian view is rapidly growing in the Republican party. I was an ignorant Republican until about 3 years ago, I know them.
Quickdraw5 - "his brand of politics helps the rich and he's really just like any other republican". "he sounds like most other republicans who want to get rid of government, unless it benifits the rich, and not acknowledge that there are deep inequalities in opportunity in our country that need a system to reduce them"
No, you are not understanding what it is you see. For the most part you can split the Republican party into 2 views.
1. The old GOP - That wants to take whatever big government overreach the Democrats have done and try to run it better.
2. The libertarianized Republicans - Not full libertarian but a strong and growing integration of it.
Quickdraw5 "He proposed more military spending"
But it's not for "spreading democracy", as a lot of war hawks believe in. Paul is talking about strengthening our Defense. Not sure if you noticed, but we have come close to WWIII a few times and things are not getting better. Paul is for reducing our active bases around the world.
Quickdraw5 - "full out attack on ISIS"
I listened to an interview about a month ago, were he clarified himself on that. When he says go to war with ISIS, he is not talking about American troops. His is talking about supporting established Arab nations like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, with them using their troops. Big difference.
Quickdraw5 - "his brand of politics helps the rich".
You do not understand Libertarianism. Paul is for a Flat Tax, it's neutral. It treats everyone the same. If you compare it to the current system, it would actually have the uber rich pay more because they would not have special loop holes.
Quickdraw5 - "sounds like most other republicans who want to get rid of government, unless it benifits the rich"
Both republican and democrat politicians LOVE the rich. Can you point me to a democrat politican that has actually given up power or money? Where have they actually ever made a policy that effects only the 1%? Democrats will talk it up but when the policy actually meets the road. It's the always the poor, the middle class and the low tier rich that get hit. NEVER the 1%. Or have you forgotten the payroll tax about 2 years ago. It took $50 a month out of my above poverty line income.
What benifits the rich? Tax code does. It is where they get all the exceptions that normal people don't. It's why Apple, Google, GM pay about 1%, and my mom's small business is paying 35%.
Quickdraw5 - " cutting funding for education". " get rid of government", "doesn't support civil rights"
You have a strong misunderstanding of the Libertarian-ish/Conservative views that are coming up. It would benefit you to give it more thought and study. Where ever you are hearing the abolish government stuff, is greatly distorting things. What we talk about is limiting the Federal Government to keeping us safe for foreign groups/countries, stabilize (not kill) our currency. The right to life, the right to be Free, the right to pursue our happiness (short hand basic list). EVERYTHING else is for State Government and the people of that State to decide. In some cases that is close to no government, others like Massachusetts want Romney care. That's fine, just don't force it on me.
Example education - Yes we want to end the Federal Dep of Education, they have no business in it. They run it like shit. If you have a choice between sending your kid to privet school of your choice or public, would you ever choose public? I'd call you a lier if you said yes. Our goal is getting education back in the control of parents, NOT abolishing it.
Civil Rights - Paul supports the Civil Rights act that made the Government stop discrimination. The difference with a Libertarian, is that if an individual wants to be a racist jerk, as long as they don't do anything against the person, they have the right to be a racist jerk. Sociaty will work itself out. Segregation and discrimination would have ended without the Civil rights act. Or are you forgetting that it was the people that forced the government to stop.
Bernie Sanders - is a Socialist. Socialist governments always end with a ruling rich class, and a poverty class. If your lucky, a poverty-middleish class
2 Mil is expensive?! What do you all do with your money? Max your bank loan, and you will never have to worry about it.
The only people that need to bail out are the high levels. Lowers can be busted without much issue. Chad probably has it this way to drain some money from the economy. Inflation is a problem after all. But changing it from 2x to something like 25% extra time would probably be good.