Classic Obama
Submitted by civil on November 4, 2009 - 2:05pm
After 30 years and $13B in construction costs, the Yucca Mountain Spent Uranium fuel depository is ready for operation. President Obama, true to a campaign promise, immediately ordered it padlocked. In keeping with past closings of facilities (Gitmo) he ordered the closing with no plan in place for the disposal of the spent Uranium fuel from the 100 or so nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. Existing storage ponds will soon fill, forcing a shutdown of the plants, which supply 20% of the nation's electrical power. This, coupled with his promise to put coal operated power plants out of business could pose a serious shortage in electrical generation capacity in the near future. Auxiliary generation systems such as wind turbines and solar panel farms are decades away from being able to fill the void. Classic example of THIMK.
- civil's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Filed under:
Comments
Here is a question maybe one of you can answer me b/c I'm confused on it......... I thought once the unemployment rate hit 10% or above, then it was declared a depression and not a recession? That is the way I learned it, so can someone clarify that for me....... But there are economist are saying that we are coming out of this "recession."
Recession and Depression are terms usually used after the fact. You have to have so many down quarters to determine which it is. So it is kind of like looking in the rear view mirror. Last month was supposedly up so that will probably effect their stats. 10% unemployment is something to stand up and take notice though. Not sure but I think the last time it got that high was during the great depression. I have heard it mentioned that standards have changed or the 10% unemployment would have been hit before now. Statistics can be warped by what is included or excluded. Personally I can see no meaningful recovery with 10% unemployment.
Thank you! I don't see any good recovery either!
I guess it got this high in june of 1983
Hey Kilroy, I guess the unemployment rate isn't the only thing they base it off of anymore or never did! It hit that high again in 83' WOW, didn't know that!
...........Warren Buffet is betting against Obama with his coal goal.............buying the Burlinton Railroad for 34 billion ............their profits are tied to the hauling of coal...........I hope Warren is right..........coal is how we have power to do what we're doing RIGHT now.........on the computer..............Obama is clueless.........if he doesn't completely bury the U.S. before he goes , he may set the democrats back decades in the political arena..............maybe he's really a Republican mole trying to ruin the Democratic party.............lol............
eldoggg
Obama said during the election that you could build coal powered plants but you'd go broke with the taxes and regulation he intends to inflict on those industries should they try. This government hazing of the Yucca project in just in line with his promises during the campaign. I hope these lefties got a plan for how they're going to supply the energy that this country consumes because I sure don't see their strategy to fill the void they're creating. Even after they tax the hell out of coal and nuclear energy they've got no infrastructure in place to supply what they're killing with wind and solar.
I always love how "righties" are all in favor of more coal burning power plants, more nuclear reactors and more drilling for oil...that is until someone wants to build a coal plant, nuclear waste dump or oil refinery in their backyard. Then they show up at city hall in force carrying reams of data about the environmental damages those facilities cause. Classic example of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard).
Maybe Democrats should consider an energy plan of constructing the most polluting energy production facilities in a tax free an unchecked manner in all the Red states, while they invest in clean energy technology for the Blue states. How is that for a compromise?
Hey, Pete good to have you back, I see unemployment hit 10% in todays jobless report. I figure when Barry gets through with hiking taxes on health care and energy taxes for all those big greedy bad guys the lefties think ought to have to pay, 10% will be the 'new normal'. But, hey, 'stupid is as stupid does' Maybe a good compromise is red states get the energy(coal/nuclear) blue states get lefties health option. Here's the catch though each has to pay for their own program
What's funny is the last time the unemployment rate was 10% was in 1983 during Reagan's term. In fact, Reagan was 2 years into his first term and that's blamed on Carter and Reagan is most Republican's hero. Obama is 10 months into his first term and he owns this current unemployment rate.
Perception is a funny thing sometimes.
When Reagan took over the unemplyment was 7.5% but inflation was 13%. The inflation had to be brought under control before unemployment could be addressed. Trying to compare Reagan to Obama or Bush to Carter is like comparing apples and oranges. Times they do move on and comparing one era to a past one is foolhardy.
dwood, I don't remember Reagan saying he needed a $1 billion tax stimulous and, as well as I remember there were tax cuts to stimulate the economy and lower unemployment. He didn't do a 'cap and trade' to tax the hell out of business that ultimately soaks the consumer, my guess he'd of probably given tax incentives to develop energy efficency in the private sector. But the big government lefties are calling the shots with a bigger government fix. When the common folk end up seeing what they're actually paying the era of 'stupid is as stupid does' will die a fitting death.
You're right, Reagan didn't do that. As I recall he increased military spending to some pretty high levels and ran a huge deficit while he cut everybody's taxes along with this trickle down economy policy.
However, as I stated, and your post didn't answer, Regan's unemployment 2 years into his presidency was Carter's fault and Obama's unemployment 10 months into his presidency well it's his own fault.
Oh and don't forget his green initiatives as well by taking down the solar panels off the White House. There was some forward thinking for ya.
dwood, let me explain this to you in as simple of terms as I can. Yes, you are right the unemployment hit 10% during both their presidencies. Reagans fault, Carters fault who cares. Obama's fault, Bushes fault who cares. Barry said if we'd spend $1 trillion in stimulous spending unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% that was his selling point to convince us he knew what to do. It's at 10.2% and most predict unemployment >10% for all of 2010. Civil makes an excellent point that today inflation is basically 0% and Reagan had to deal with double digit interest/inflation. With the level of borrowing/spending by government today inflation/interest rates are definitely Barrys Sword of Damocles. To put it in perspective so you lefties can understand this is a 'mission accomplished' moment for Barry. (dwood I'd also like to correct myself, I inadvertently stated $1 billion earlier, I should have said $1 Trillion)
Yeah, that's right. Let's blame President Obama for the 10 percent unemployment figure, and completely ignore the fact that it was at 8.1 percent (the highest mark in 25 years) when he took office in Feb. 2009. It's very convenient to forget that, isn't it?
Bush embarks upon a classic Republican "Don't tax and spend" policy for 8 years that enriches corporate America and erodes the financial viability of Middle Class America - who are the real backbone of our economy BTW - yet Obama and lefties are "stupid" in dshrout's mind for trying to balance the scales again?
How long do you think corporate America will last if we listen to Republicans and keep giving all the money and tax breaks to the wealthiest top 5 percent, while the middle class goes broke and can't afford to buy their products any more?
Here's a story showing how great trickle down economics worked under President Shrub:
US income gap widest since 1917
19 August 2009
The social chasm separating America’s financial oligarchy from working people, the vast majority of the population, is wider than at any time since 1917, according to the latest statistics from the Internal Revenue Service.
The income gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 90 percent has reached “a level higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of the stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s,” according to an analysis of the data published earlier this month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez.
Saez’s report, entitled “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States,” shows that the real increase in the concentration of wealth has taken place at the pinnacle of the social pyramid—the top 1 percent, with annual incomes of $400,000 and above.
The figures released by the IRS are from 2007. They indicate that for most of the top 10 percent (families with incomes of $110,000 or more), there was little change in terms of income growth and share, but the top 1 percent increased their share of the national income to 23.5 percent, compared with 22.8 percent in 2006.
Between 2002 and 2006, this social layer, consisting of one out of 100 American households, accounted for 65 percent of income growth nationwide. This trend has held for the better part of the past decade.
During the period 2002-2007, the top one percent saw an annual growth in income of just over 10 percent annually. During the same period, the bottom 99 percent saw an increase of only 1.3 percent per year, falling well below the rate of inflation. As a result, the top one percent accounted for two thirds of income growth over the six-year period.
Bringing this income stratification into still sharper focus provides a staggering indication of the concentration of wealth in the US. The top .01 percent of the population, (less than 15,000 families) saw its share of total income rise from 5.46 percent in 2006 to 6.04 percent in 2007 (compared to just 0.9 percent in 1979). This 2007 figure amounts to roughly double the total combined income for the bottom 20 percent, some 30 million families.
As Saez comments, “2007 was an incredibly good year for the super rich.”
It was also, of course, the year preceding the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This was no mere coincidence. The accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth by this tiny minority is a major factor in the bankrupting of the country and the plunging of the entire world into economic crisis and misery.
Professor Saez points to the dramatic changes in the economic landscape since 2007, noting that real income is falling across the board. He points out that in previous recessions, the income share of the top 1 percent has tended to decline because business profits, capital gains and stock option returns tend to fall faster than average income.
“Based on the US historical record, falls in income concentration due to recessions are temporary unless drastic policy changes such as financial regulation or significantly more progressive taxation are implemented and prevent income concentration from coming back,” Saez writes.
The present crisis, however, is not just another recession. Rather, it signals the final collapse of the post-World War II global capitalist order, which depended on the economic supremacy of the United States. The ruling elite, not just in the US but in all the major capitalist countries, aims to resolve this crisis through a drastic reduction in the income and social conditions of the working class, accompanied by attacks on basic democratic rights and an increasing turn to military aggression.
As part of this global process, the working class in the US has already suffered severe blows. Some 30 million are jobless or relegated to involuntary part-time work, while wage-cutting is rampant.
At the other end of the social spectrum, wealth accumulation continues unabated. Seven of America’s top ten CEOs took home total compensation of $100 million or more last year, according to a report by the independent research group The Corporate Library. This compares to just three who pocketed that much the year before.
Topping the list (which includes the heads of seven major oil companies) is Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone Group LP, the private equity firm, who took in $702.4 million—nearly $2 million a day.
Meanwhile, Wall Street has set aside tens of billions of dollars for annual bonuses, with 2009 set to be the most lucrative year yet for the bankers and financial traders.
Excuse me, Pete, it's hard to sort the fact from the fiction with Barry. I actually thought when he said if the $1 trillion stimulous passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8%, he knew what he was talking about. That's a lot of money for an empty suit politician to throw out like he knows what he's talking about not to be correct. Care to comment about how many politicians were able to tax their country out of a recession(let alone the worst since the depression) Sounds like you're not too happy with Barrys pay Czar. Whining about what someone else makes will do nothing to resolve the unemployment. It's a separate issue. The lefties are getting their social philosophy all mixed up with the root of the problem. Sad part is your guy at the top of the ticket is just standing waiting, providing no leadership, trying to see who's going to prevail in the leftie/moderate party so he can declare victory and throw the losers under the bus with grandma and the preacher.
"Whining about what someone else makes will do nothing to resolve the unemployment. It's a separate issue." - dshrout
I completely disagree. I think exhorbitant CEO pay has a direct effect on unemployment.
If a corporation pays a CEO $100 million a year. That is a huge chunk of the company's profits. How about paying the CEO $50 million instead and using the other $50 million to rehire 1,000 middle class suburbanites at $50,000 a year. You know, the employees who probably got laid off to maintain that exhorbitant CEO pay level? Then those employees, who actually will spend that money raising their families, can afford to buy homes, school supplies, eat at restaurants, purchase recreational vehicles and otherwise stimulate the economy.
The CEO isn't doing that with the $100 million he makes, and he darn sure isn't "trickling it down" and creating jobs with it or unemployment wouldn't be at 10 percent right now. Trickle down economics is the biggest scam Republicans have ever pulled on middle class Americans. It results in us giving even more wealth to people who are already so wealthy they have everything they need, so they invest their excess wealth with some hedge fund manager or someone else willing to run scams on the middle class - like the sub prime loan fiasco, or short sellling a still viable company into the ground - in order to "create returns" to make the Monopoly guy even more money.
Wake up people. Greed is what got us into this situation and more greed isn't going to get us out. It's time to rob from the rich and give to the poor. It's exactly what Robin Hood democrats in the House want to do, but the Senate democrats and President Obama would rather negotiate with the greedy Republicans of Nottingham.
So I actually question why Republicans like Dshrout despise Obama so much, considering virtually all of his actions to date have done more to thwart liberal causes than the Republicans. Look at the track record: He kept Republican Gates as his defense secretary, ensuring status quo on the war in Iraq; he appointed Geither, a Wall Street insider, as treasury secretary; it took him about two seconds to throw the public health option under the bus; he's advocated no changes in tax policy for 2009 and likely for 2010 as well; etc...
I believe I saw on the news we need 100,000jobs/month just to keep up with population growth. We've lost 7.2 million jobs to date. Your own example of CEO salary cut to create 1000 jobs @ $50,000 validates my point of why it's a separate issue. Pete, you're wanting to have a class warfare arguement like it's going to solve the problem. The CEO can work for $0 and only create 2000 jobs. Take 7.2 million jobs lost times $50000/job and you'll soon discover if every CEO at a publically traded company worked for nothing you've solved nothing, just a fools solution. I have yet to figure out why you Plebeians want to relive the Bolshevik revolution.
Who said anything about CEOs working for nothing?
My argument is related to the LARGE AND GROWING DISPARITY between the percentage of corporate profits that go to management and the percentage that goes to working class people. There is a major difference between a multimillionaire CEO with a golden parachute who isn't effected by a job loss, and the blue collar workers who has to figure out how to feed their family on an unemployment check after their company lays them off to maintain the profitability that feeds a ridiculous percentage of profits to management.
Virtually every day in the business news there is a story about some company that laid off hundreds of workers to save costs, and while their revenue is now down, their profitability is now at all time highs. The CEOs are making the same amounts or more at most of those companies, so no, I'm not going to cry if we increase their taxes in attempts to take care of the unemployed.
If you think completely ignoring the plight of the Proletariat (i.e. lower incomes, higher inflation, exponentially rising health costs, etc..) will lead this country out of recession and back to economic empirialism, all I can say is thank God Republicans aren't in charge any more.
The reason America was an economic superpower for decades after WWII was we had the world's strongest consumer class. It's easy to see that isn't the case any more. China is the world's largest economic superpower now, and not the USA. While they focus on developing middle class consumers and creating manufactured goods, we're developing our upper class and creating investment scams.
There's more power in not buying their product than in trying to dictate their pay. Again, their pay is not the most eminent problem, it's jobs. You can work on your ideal parabolic curve on income distribution at your next ACORN meeting and discuss the disparity of 'those guys' overpaid salaries. Just remember pete, those making 1/2 what you look at you the way you look at those making twice what you're making. Class envy isn't the solution
Not buying gasoline to protest the pay of petroleum executives is not a viable option. Neither is not buying food to protest the pay of the CEO of Smithfield Foods or whoever.
This has nothing to do with class envy. If anything, I feel sorry for people whose whole life is so meaningless that they are engulfed by greed to the point where they don't give a cr@p about anyone or anything else, even to the detriment of the entire country. Rampant out of control greed is the problem with our economy.
Problem is pete, you want to paint with a pretty broad brush. I have no problem with folks like Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates wealth. I don't think greed drives them, it's the intellectual competition. It takes a white hot burn in your belly to be driven to a success level envied by some and misunderstood by most and the competition is good for the consumer. Financial greed has a certain measure of envy associated with it and a significant number of leaders in business and government have a philosophy of the 'ends justifies the means' and it's the lack of shame on their part and the acceptance of it by the general public that's the problem. We deserve the business and government we'll tollerate.
........"for the LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil"..
........how's that for a quote RATM71?.......
......"Wall Street and the corporate greed of the mortgage industry helped bury us ..................I have to agree that we are a victim of our OWN greed..........as a country........perhaps not us little people , but the suits in power..............that's exactly what happens in third world countries...........only worse.............the people starve and those in power get filthy rich...............
eldoggg
Pete's not talking about class envy. Pete's talking about CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars a year while their companies are struggling and laying off people left and right. What sense does that make?
The difference between how much more CEO's make than their average employee has gone to ridiculous amounts in the last 40 years. I know Pete has put it up on the blogs several times.
I guess I'll need to know your definition of class envy, dwood. There's a corporate board that should be doing what you're wanting to regulate with executive compensation. I'm not defending their actions, but I'm not in favor of turning it over to the feds either. Their bookkeeping is more creative than the corporations. The real $ cost on the house health care bill is a great case in point. By the way, dwood, do you wear white socks?
(rim shot)..............................
EDIT : I made an additional addendum to my (rim shot) post .....after saving it I notice I got it on the wrong header......so forgive me for my indiscretion.......I'm too lazy to delete this whole thing tonight..........I "copied & pasted" to pattiharris's post office blog.............
....ROFLMDAO..........I HAVE to admit those post office stories were pretty unbelievable......till I consider WHO runs the post office...........I remember a valiant effort by Pistol Pete a short while back........a blogger posted "Can anybody give me ONE example of a successful government run program?"........and Pete " stepped up to the plate" with a couple tries.......one of which was "The Post Office"............well , I know dwood and Pete are comrades , but I think dwood might have unwittingly shot Pistol Pete in the foot on this one..........dwood was only at the "post office " ONE year..........and he saw ALL that?..............there are hundreds of thousands of PO employees.......I don't believe dwood's observations were the "exception to the rule"...........I think I understand now why the PO has to raise stamp prices frequently.......instead of trying to SAVE money?.........they are a government enitity........epitomizing waste .........coming back to the "public well" , time and time again.........and even then almost going broke.........a government success story?................doesn't sound like it from dwood's personal observations........sounds like a corporate nightmare...........I used to meet hundreds of PO employees when I worked 12 blocks from the big KC post office by Crown Center.......and I HAVE to tell you.........I used to shake my head and marvel at a LOT of them............not the sharpest pencils in the box...............no offense to the hard working deliverers or "Pottery Barn" catalogs.........in their army of wool suits.......lol.......I had friends work for the PO and they were great.........one of my girlfriend's dad worked there............I'm just saying they aren't the most efficient operation in the world......and dwood's stories only confirm that.................
eldoggg
Maybe the Democrats should consider what source of energy they will put in place after both fossil fuels and nuclear energy have been vetoed. Neither solar nor wind will run an automobile engine effeciently. The current biofuels don't produce enough energy per pound to be economical, in fact in some instances it takes more energy to produce the biofuel than the biofuel produces in return. Lets see the "Lefties" come forward with a sensible solution rather than smart assed dribble.
Taxing polluting sources of energy to encourage innovation is not "vetoing" fossile fuels and nuclear energy. I haven't seen or heard of any American company tearing down their coal burning or nuclear power plants as a result of this.
But apparently encouraging power companies to pursue clean energy is "smart ass dribble" in civil's mind.
Obama's promise during his campaign was "you can build a coal fueled power plant if you wish, but the taxes on it will bankrupt you". Closing Yucca, another of his promises, will kill all nuclear power (including our war ships) simply because there is no safe depository for the spent fuel rods. The initial post was to point out that Obama has a way of cancelling ongoing programs with no plans in place for their replacement. He set out to close Gitmo with no program for dealing with the detainee's, release or relocation. His cap and trade will raise the cost of coal power to the point it is unaffordable, again with no valid plan for replacement, and closing Yucca Mountain will result in suspension of nuclear power, again with no workable plan for a substitute system in place. He doesn't think much beyond the end of his nose.
Obama's team said the the Stimulus Plan woyuld limit the unemployment figure to 8% . It was 7.1% when Obama took office in January. Today it was announced it had reached 10.2%. Bush's program had nothing to do with the financial collapse. That can be traced almost directly to the CRA which was first signed by Carter and was amended by Clinton. That legislation empowered ACORN to coerce banks to make risky loans. Barney Frank swore Freddie and Fannie were sound less than a year before we had to bail them out. Dodd blocked stronger regulation rules in the Senate Committee in 2005. I don't blame Obama, but I sure do place a lot of the blame on the backs of the Democratic party.
I hope Buffett is right also. I have a son who is a conductor on that RR. He, and several thousand others, was furloughed last December. Been a long time between trains.