Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Stormi 1 month ago
    Fine, stay green, but the breenbacks will be moving out, or all spent, and you will be nothing. Look at what this UN Agenda 21 compliance has done to other countries who took this path. Read Dr. Illeana Johnson Paugh and her description of her homeland of Romania. So sad, so meaningless, as it solves nothing. It is all based on a bogus hoax by the UN, who even claim it is only to "control people."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
    There is nothing wrong with using free sources to generate electricity if you WANT to. I would have solar panels here in Las Vegas where I live, IF I wasnt required to sell any excess energy to the NV Energy grid. I would use the free energy from the sun to heat my pool and house, and provide electricity for my house (at least during the sunny days and power failures of the grid).

    But, given I dont have that opportunity and its illegal to just install solar panels and use them whenever I want to, I continue to rely on NV Energy for my electricity. Too Bad.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 1 month ago
    Humans prefer emotional thinking (which almost always errs) to logical thinking. They seem to prefer the stimulation of "the sky is falling" to discovering what it was that hit them on the head. Example: Even scientists who study the Yellowstone Super Volcano often start their treatise with 'It's Overdue!' when no such information is available. Yes it has erupted approximately every 60,000 years and it has been longer than that since the last eruption but there is no information available that will predict when it will erupt again if ever. The magma chamber is still there driving the geysers but will it erupt or slow down and cool off?
    There was an ice age that ended 10,000 years ago. At that time there was ice a mile thick over what is now New York state. The polar bears didn't hunt on the ice in northern Canada because it never melted back then. Will the current warming trend continue until all the ice has melted? We don't know. The earth has been without any permanent ice before. Will we all die? We don't know. If we hang around long enough until the sun swells into a red giant swallowing the earth then we will.
    Let's bring the question back to what if we do know is it morally right to then control people and how they respond to the problem? Never! Let people be free to make mistakes, correct them if they can and figure out what they want to do. Some will make the wrong choice. Allowing them to do so will also allow those who will logically discover what is best and those that follow that will build and succeed and survive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month ago
    It looks to me as if some people just hate industry, and are trying to come up with patronizing (and self-righteous) excuses to destroy it. But let's not let them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 1 month ago
    NEBRASKA 'S temperature this a.m. is -40 degrees. I doubt they would want to 'Go Green!'.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 1 month ago
      You mean they might have something against burst water pipes, and general freezing to death? Sorry, I know its a serious situation. But, when the wind doesn't blow, there is no wind power, and there is no solar power at night. Batteries (for leveling power from wind and solar) have to be charged before they can dispatch power to the grid, and if there is a long period of time when the wind doesn't blow, those batteries can discharge and you have nothing. Even coal plants can go down in the winter under certain conditions. Coal plants require such large quantities of coal that coal input is by conveyor belts feeding the burners from large piles of coal outside (generally, in most coal plants I know of). When it gets cold enough for a long enough time, those conveyor belts can freeze up. That happened not too many years ago in the Northeast. Fortunately, the region had ample nuclear stations to keep the power on.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 1 month ago
    Are these misinformed "All Green" folks serious? I will gladly sent them my last two $900 light bills. And I live on the Gulf Coast of Texas, which is considered a TROPIC ZONE
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
    I hope supporters of "the green new deal" read this. It's almost as if they though long and hard about how they could get people to ignore global warming. Someone came up with the brilliant idea of wrapping a big green bow around socialism. If they are successful, they will have pulled off an amazing feat of getting people to delay acting on one of the biggest problems of our time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month ago
      Thanks for the comment, CircuitGuy. You probably realize that I do not see "global warming" as "one of the biggest problems of our time. I don't see that the evidence supports that at all. I do realize that it is widely asserted to be an even catastrophic crisis, but, again, I don't see it. On the same site the I republished this letter, I have several other essays on climate change where I offer some of the evidence and argumentation for my view.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
        " I do realize that it is widely asserted to be an even catastrophic crisis,"
        We should work on quantifying the costs of global warming. I understand they're large but not "catastrophic.". I think they're only catastrophic if people just kept trying to grow crops in places where the climate lends itself to other crops or ignore rising water instead of building barriers. Obviously any modelling of the costs should include the fact that people can respond rationally to a changing world. The models should also include the less common examples of increased value such as arctic lands becoming arable.

        It's a "catastrophic crisis" to the same extent the national debt is. The debt definitely has costs, but I don't believe models that say people will not make the hard choices once there's an immediate debt crisis. In both cases I expect people to wait for the immediate minicrisis and then take corrective action.

        "I republished this letter,"
        I think it's great the newspaper publishes letters to the editor. It sounds so quaint. I never thought I'd say it but I miss the days when the newspaper was the primary print medium with editors as a gatekeeper who published dissenting ideas as long as they were presented clearly and respectfully
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month ago
          I think that the earth does what it wants for the most part. It warms and cools on its own far before humans could have had any effect at all.

          Secondly, government doesnt do anything right, so I doubt that would be any different in this case.

          Thirdly, in the next 50 years if sea levels rise, thats enough time for people to slowly move to higher ground and away from the effects of climate changes.

          Fourthly, increased CO2 actually increases plant life and the growing season and the production of oxygen.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month ago
            Good points term but It is the sun. The sun does what it does and it has a regular cycle. The heat in my home comes from my furnace.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month ago
              I have solar panels that heat my pool, and very effectively compared with a pool heater which I rarely use actually. The sun is quite powerful here in las vegas, and would do a good job heating my house if they were deployed in such a way to do that. The heat output is impressive, and free !
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
          I can quite easily quantify the costs of "global warming". Zero. Why? Because it is an invented calamity.

          I think the thing that is the most telling is that all of these "studies" assume that it is human events which are to blame while they ignore the single biggest influencer of climate: the Sun. To me, any study which focuses on minutiae while excluding the major factors is invalid from the beginning.

          The second thing that really puts me off about these self-proclaimed experts is that they've already invented at least two other climatological catastrophes which utterly failed to come about: global cooling (the 1970's) and acid raid deforestation (1980's). All before they hyped global "warming" in the 1990's and now the more nebulous "climate change" of the 2010's. It's the boy who cried wolf over and over and over again.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 1 month ago
            I think its even more insidious than that. First, there is a priori physics (physical chemistry, actually) which supports the assertion that CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is a consequence of global warming, not a driving function. Yes, increased CO2 levels can trap more of the sun's incoming radiation, but the argument is that that is a second-order affect. Water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas" in that it serves to trap incoming solar radiation, and is more effective than CO2 (for one thing, its concentration is much higher). The truth is that CO2 is also in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the world's oceans. To quantify this, I once helped a chemist friend of mine with a problem he had. He had found a Fortran program that defined all 13 nonlinear equations in 13 unknowns for the ammonia/CO2/water system, but the source code lacked a numerical routine that actually solved the system. I wrote him one as a subroutine. The 13 equations defined the equilibrium concentrations of the three components in both vapor and liquid phases, for a given temperature and pressure and given the moles of each component present. The program contained a pretty rigorous treatment of activity coefficients for the liquid phase along with vapor phase fugacities. When you solve the system, sure enough, as the temperature increases (for a constant pressure), the CO2 tends to shift from the liquid phase to the vapor phase. So, if the Earth's global average temperature is increasing (due to, say, increasing solar output, tied to sunspot cycles, etc.), you would EXPECT the world's oceans to release more CO2 (and the converse is also true). So, increasing temperature causes more CO2 in the air, because of the shift in the equilibria between vapor and liquid phases. On the other hand, increased CO2 production by man, would be mitigated by these same equilibria relationships forcing more CO2 back into the oceans. (Le Chatelier's Principle in chemistry states that whenever there is a change in the equilibrium state of a system, there will tend to be mechanisms that will mitigate the change.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 3 days ago
              "When you solve the system, sure enough, as the temperature increases (for a constant pressure), the CO2 tends to shift from the liquid phase to the vapor phase."
              At what temperature and pressure is this phase change occurring?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                Okay, sample problem: Assume a basis of 55.51 moles of water (1 kg, or 1 liter), 7.0 moles CO2, and 9.0 moles of ammonia. At 1 atmosphere pressure and 60 degrees C, the amount of CO2 in the vapor phase is 0.54 moles (total number of moles in vapor phase = 0.686). If I increase temperature to 65 degrees C, the number of moles of CO2 in the vapor phase increases to 0.85 moles (with total number of moles in vapor phase = 1.192). Now, these conditions are admittedly far from Earth's atmospheric conditions, but the base case (60 C) was the original test case for this problem, and the program sets up initial estimates for the concentrations internal to the program (they're hard-wired in the source code). I tried several times to get "more Earth-like" conditions to converge, but ran into numerical stability problems and the program kept crashing. To get this problem to run, I would have to go back into the source code and re-hard-wire more realistic initial estimates (and its been probably 10 years since I've looked at the source code) and then recompile the program. Sorry I couldn't give you a better sample problem - have you got a charge code for billable hours? :-) Anyway, this does show the trends. It's very unlikely nature would reverse the sign of the perturbation at lower temperatures and lower CO2 (and ammonia) concentrations. I hope this helps... (you're lucky I found the code after all these years!)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                  In this model, is some CO2 and some NH3 in the liquid phase?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                    Yes, I input the total number of moles. In my example, the number of moles of CO2 in the vapor phase was 0.54 (for the 60 C case). The number of moles in the liquid phase is therefore 7.0 - 0.54 = 6.46 moles. The program does output the various ionic forms in the liquid phase. Instead of me retyping in the output here, I'll just copy and paste the "tail-end" of the output file:

                    Liquid Phase Molalities and Activity Coefficients:

                    Ionic strength = 0.112365E+02 molal
                    H2O 0.492487E+02 AW 0.918976E+00
                    Hion 0.134369E-07 AH 0.977538E+00
                    OHion 0.723011E-05 AOH 0.915178E+00
                    NH3aq 0.514195E+00 ANH3 0.891992E+00
                    NH4ion 0.925273E+01 ANH4 0.126924E+00
                    CO2aq 0.128607E-01 ACO2 0.997687E+00
                    CO3ion 0.198375E+01 ACO3 0.130500E-02
                    HCO3ion 0.493293E+01 AHCO3 0.951841E-01
                    NH2CO2ion 0.352293E+00 ANH2CO2 0.729538E+00

                    Vapor Phase Mole Fractions and Fugacity Coefficients:
                    yH2O 0.181711E+00 fH2O 0.992995E+00
                    yNH3 0.323162E-01 fNH3 0.996795E+00
                    yCO2 0.785973E+00 fCO2 0.996863E+00

                    Total vapor 0.68644 moles


                    Note: The spacing didn't reproduce very well from the original (ASCII format) output file - in the original output file, the above table is nicely laid out. But, you should be able to still read it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                      "In this model, is some CO2 and some NH3 in the liquid phase?"
                      "Yes,"
                      It must be in the gaseous phase but in solution with water. CO2 doesn't exist in the liquid phase at standard pressure. In solution its equilibrium point has it mostly bubbling out into normal air at sea level.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                        In the computer output, it looks like there are four different forms of carbon-bearing species present in the liquid phase: CO2_aqueous (0.01286 Molal), CO3_ion (1.984 Molal), HCO3_ion (4.933 Molal), and NH2CO2_ion (0.352 Molal). So, CO2_aqueous is the lowest concentration of the four species. Also note that the vapor phase is mostly CO2 (mole fraction = 0.786). As I mentioned in my original post, the computer program I'm using defines chemical equilibrium constants for all the relevant reactions that describes the system, including CO2 reacting with the other species present (also note that H2O dissociation into H+ and OH- is also captured, and that the pH of the system is -log10([H+]) = 7.87, so the solution is close to neutral but is slightly basic (pH>7). I'm not actually a chemist (I'm a nuclear engineer), but my strongest background is in numerical methods (modeling and simulation). My "chemist friend" who I originally wrote the solver for supplied most of the code, and I'm pretty much "taking on faith" the chemistry behind it. The "solver" I wrote for the program uses a multi-variable form of Newton-Raphson iteration to find an approximate solution to the 13 nonlinear equations. Newton iteration for one function of a single variable looks like:
                        x(i+1) = x(i) - f(x(i)) / f'(x(i)), where "i" is the iteration index and f' is the first-order derivative of the function, f. In multi-variable form, the unknown "x" and the function "f" become vectors, and instead of dividing by the derivative, you multiply the inverse of the Jacobian matrix by the "f" vector (so it is a matrix inversion problem for each iteration). The Jacobian matrix elements are the partial derivatives of each of the functions with respect to each of the "x" variables, so J(i,j) = df(i)/dx(j).
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                          I haven't thought about Newton's Method for over 20 years. It's cool you have a chance to work on it.

                          This chemistry is outside my area too, but my impression is chemical reactions involving CO2 predominate in the Earth's atmosphere over physical reactions, e.g. the equilibria between the atmospheric pressure and CO2 dissolved in water. I suspect the equilibrium between plant life consuming CO2 and aerobic respiration producing CO2 predominates. Human activities releasing carbon + energy that was stored over hundreds of millions of years of sun shining is tipping the balance, causing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be in the low 400 ppm instead being in the 300 ppm range. I don't understand the details of how this fits into the cycle of glacial maxima and minima, but I accept the science that human activities are big part of the increase and that it will likely have costly effects.

                          BTW, the periphery of our areas overlap. I encountered CO2 measurement when I was working on a project that measured the ratio of isotopes of C in CO2 for medical purposes. The mechanics of isotopes is probably more your area.

                          It reminds me of a talk I heard on LENR, where they said there may be processes that release energy from moving between of non-radioactive isotopes Ni. It sounds too go to be true.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                            If CO2 increases, this should be beneficial to plant life. We also know from ice core samples that in the distant past, CO2 in the atmosphere was as high as 4,000 ppm (from Wikipedia), and probably not because the dinosaurs were driving too many SUVs. I still think natural variations are the first-order effects, and man-made contributions are 2nd or 3rd-order at most. Environmental modeling is extremely complicated, unless you introduce a lot of simplifying assumptions. I haven't heard anything about the energy source from Ni, but any energy that's released has to be stored there in the first place. Different crystal lattice configurations can have different energy states, with energy either stored or released with certain phase changes. But, there is still the First (conservation of energy) and Second (entropy, and no thermal process can ever be 100% efficient) Laws of Thermodynamics. Interesting stuff!
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Lucky 2 weeks, 6 days ago
              KevinSch. . looks good, is this a validation of Henry's Law?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 2 weeks, 5 days ago
                Thanks - It's not so much a validation of Henry's Law, but an example of it. Henry's constants are calculated by my program along with other intermediate results. The following is the top header of the program source listing, with a description of the methods:
                PROGRAM SOUR
                C ============
                C
                C
                C FOR THE AMMONIA-CARBON DIOXIDE-WATER SYSTEM USING THE EDWARDS,
                C MAURER, NEWMAN AND PRAUSNITZ PITZER ACTIVITY COEFFICIENT
                C CALCULATION METHOD AND THE NAKAMURA ET AL. METHOD TO CALCULATE
                C FUGACITY COEFFICIENTS. THE SYSTEM HAS THIRTEEN UNKNOWNS:
                C MOLES OF WATER, SIX IONIC MOLALITIES, TWO AQUEOUS MOLECULE
                C MOLALITIES, THREE VAPOR MOLE FRACTIONS AND TOTAL MOLES OF VAPOR.
                C
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 3 days ago
            "Because [global warming] is an invented calamity."
            This is simply making stuff up, making up stuff that we wish were true. It has no basis in reality. We might has well be discussing whether the world is only a few thousand years old. It's making stuff up from whole cloth.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month ago
      Socialism creep is one of the biggest problems of our time. And we seem to be doing very little overall to even slow it down.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  mminnick 1 month ago
        People like free things and socialism promises many free thing, all paid for by OPM. It only gets painful when the amount of OPM = o. That comes about very fast with all that the socialists promise.
        I think that is one reason socialists don't want history taught as it should be, with facts etc.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
          I am interested in hearing the criticism about my idea of about how acceptance of taxes would be different if they were paid in coins and bills that the payer physically handed over.
          I'm happy to hear other views, but we need to know what they are. Will the person downvoting this post an alternative view?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
            I fully endorse the notion that people actually pay their entire tax bill in full one time per year. If people want to withhold a certain amount from their paychecks each month similar to an escrow account for mortgages that would be fine with me. I think people would change their tunes dramatically if they had to write out one big check to the government every year than this death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach we currently have.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 3 days ago
              "I think people would change their tunes dramatically if they had to write out one big check to the government every year"
              Yes. Any way that the money could touch their hands in cash form and then get handed over would be good. Numbers on a paystub aren't enough.

              I also think the amount you pay should increase the very next week after a new policy initiative. Whether it's intervening in Syria, a new program to help children, a law for longer prison sentences for criminals, more research for cancer, people would start paying immediately.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                "I also think the amount you pay should increase the very next week after a new policy initiative."

                That's an interesting idea, but it would be chaos to implement. It's hard enough for the government to get the tax tables right one time per year - trying to constantly adjust them after major policy adjustments would be nuts.


                Now, another thing I have thought of is that the individual states should be apportioned a share of the total bill according to the total number of representatives they have serving in Congress (a minimum of three: two Senators + one Congressman). The House must originate all spending bills and often is controlled by the most populous states. So let them be responsible for forking out the most money to pay for the bills they pass! And tie the apportionment directly to the actual spending which took place during the year - not what they "budget".

                I'm also in favor of a Constitutional Amendment which would put the costs of all Representatives' salaries and benefits (and that of their staffers) back on the States whom they represent. I really could care less if a Senator from California makes a million per year while a Senator from Idaho makes $50K - as long as their own states are paying the bills. It would also mean that their books are subject to audit by their State authorities. I think that the elected branch of government should be paid for by the people they represent rather than out of coffers they directly control.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                  "Now, another thing I have thought of is that the individual states should be apportioned a share of the total bill according to the total number of representatives they have serving in Congress (a minimum of three: two Senators + one Congressman). "
                  I think this would shift the burden from states currently funding the government, those with finance, biotech, to the states with assembly, agricultural, and extraction industries. I can't imagine the latter accepting more of the tax burden. They are more receptive to promises of more government benefits and simplistic narratives that blame their problems on people who are different and the industries paying the taxes funding their benefits. They pay zero income taxes, except for payroll taxes, but they somehow imagine they are paying taxes.

                  Sometimes I wish the finance and tech areas were separate from the rest of the country and each could do its own thing. I think a better solution is the minimal central government the founders of the country created, but it a small central gov't been long forgotten. In my fantasy, urban and rural teenagers would train together in well-regulated militia with weapons and tools they keep and own personally. They don't have to agree on anything except the broad principles in the Constitution.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 4 days ago
                    "I think this would shift the burden from states currently funding the government, those with finance, biotech, to the states with assembly, agricultural, and extraction industries."

                    I don't know why this would make any difference to be honest. The principle is the same as that forming the basis for the House of Representatives: that if a funding bill must originate from the House of the People, then the People ought to be responsible for paying their own individual share of those burdens - regardless their industry or occupation. As a side effect, this would also make those States who artificially prop themselves up with immigrant labor have to pay more as a result.

                    "I think a better solution is the minimal central government the founders of the country created, but it a small central gov't been long forgotten. In my fantasy, ..."

                    I echo your dream. My fantasy world similarly consists of an almost imperceptible government where the President has a cabinet of only two or three people and private enterprise runs the nation - not the lobbyists. And all because from grade school days children are taught and grow up under principles of self-government and responsibility rather than self-entitlement and victimhood.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
          "It only gets painful when the amount of OPM = o"
          I agree with all of this. I also think how the money is paid makes a difference. Money is an abstraction. Numbers on a page to represent money are a further abstraction. Even for numerically sophisticated people, they would respond more if they recieved their pay in a stack of $100 bills or gold coins, and then they had to hand them over to someone else. The reality of what's happening would be viscerally clear.

          I have read a bunch of articles about people unhappy with that tax cut because it modified the withholding tables. They are paying less in taxes overall, and the witholding tables are more accurate so their employer only withholds an accurate estimates of their taxes. Despite paying less, these people are saying they were counting on a refund, and it's thrown them off. I don't think they'd make this foolish mistake in accounting if they got paid in a stack of coins and handed over various bits of the stack for withholding, their half of Medicare/SS, and state withholding. It would be even better if they saw the employer hand over its share to Medicare/SS, SUTA, and FUTA,. Even an financially unsophisticated employee would think, "they could just hand me that SUTA/FUTA money and I could put in the bank or in a safe in case I lose my job."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  gharkness 1 month ago
            " these people are saying they were counting on a refund, and it's thrown them off."

            Indeed, and they were warned repeatedly. Even though I rarely watch the news, I saw mention many times while the change was happening that the point of this was to give the taxpayer more money at paycheck time, but that it would result in lower refunds at tax time. Goes to show, they believe the news that they want to believe, and ignore what is uncomfortable.

            I saw mention on another forum of a woman who booked a cruise which would be paid for with her tax refund. Her refund turned out to be $45 instead of the thousands she was anticipating, and she mentioned several times she was 1) a single mother 2) had already booked the cruise and 3) would lose her down payment if she didn't go on with it. It quickly became apparent she was actually asking for a handout - to go on a cruise! Equally clear was that she had no savings, but just "had" to go on this cruise because she promised her parents she would - who it turns out ALSO were counting on a tax refund and were similarly caught short, and also had no savings.

            It just boggles the mind. I don't think we live in the same world as some people do.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 3 days ago
              "It just boggles the mind."
              Yes. I can't get my mind around it. Maybe some of them can't understand why I don't eat healthful and go easier on some of my other unhealthful habits.

              I think they're undisciplined with money, and the will have money problems no matter what. A change in the withholding tables is not their core problem.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
        "Socialism creep is one of the biggest problems of our time"
        I know. I'm generally optimistic, but in this case I think there's real danger of sharply increased socialism for these reasons:
        a) return on on equity is rising while the price of labor stagnates
        b) fiscal deficit sets us up for a crisis that will allow politicians to take actions they couldn't take during good times
        c) technology is changing things, making some people open to gov't slowing down or managing the change.
        d) socialism is currently being sold as a package deal with protecting the environment.
        Socialism will not actually help with these problems. The arguments are not correct, but they may sway citizens who are only causal followers of policy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo