Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jackson33

  1. GM Janesville, was build in 1918 and later became one of the first Chevrolet/Fisher Body plants in the US and by 2008, was the oldest operating GM plant in the US. Talk of closing the plant had been persistent from the day's my Dad was Material Superintendent in the 50's in Janesville and while I worked for CNW RR, which supplied both Fisher and Chevrolet with most parts used, then building most all Chevrolet Models and Small Trucks, not pick ups.


    While media an people seem to ignore the similarity between lies and deception, for all practical purposes Obama deceived the people in South Central Wisconsin, who believed Obama WOULD save the impending closing of the plant, which several previous politicians had done over time, delaying the actual closing until after the 2008 elections, when it did closed in late December 2008. IMO, no one could have prevented the closing as it and was well beyond handling a structural retooling to the modern robotic manufactureing model or said another way would have had to be rebuilt from the ground up and cost prohibitive.


    As for who lies or deceives the ELECTORATE, most often for strictly political gains, historically Obama is the champion. Ryan's not even in the same ballpark on this issue.




    rigney, I'm posting to you while your still here and note I've seen many of your post, especially threads that have been distorted by the power to be here and want to commend you for you efforts. It's always a pleasure for me to see and read things from people that have been around the block, state what they feel and mean what they say.


    I saw where you "earned" a three day suspension for this and want you to know there are others that didn't agree then or do they now. While I won't any longer post here if you earn the ultimate reward for bothering to make 1600 post over a couple years, it's been my honor to read many of your thoughts.

  2. So where does the corporation's primary loyalty lie? With maximizing the paying of claims, i.e. fulfilling the contract, or maximizing a profit? Because you can't do both at the same time. Delaying or denying a claim, or canceling the policy (rescission) reduces payouts and increases profits at the expense of the people who expect the insurance to cover them. [/Quote]


    swansont; The primary loyalty is always to the consumer/customer. To many complaints, law suits, including rescission's, will dry up institutional or private investment, long before cutting dividends.


    The real question, already answered, is that TODAY, Government already denies more service request than the private sector, but why? Politicians already know, between Medicare/Medicaid and all the other programs catering to the vulnerable (poor/aged/children), they need the Insurance base, somewhere around 150 Million, to pay those cost.


    To reemphasize a point made earlier, there are 180 major health insurance companies in the US, each with very different policies for any individual or group employee policy, that polling indicates people are happy with and unless somehow a plan can be devised for State Control, I would prefer House District, "one size fits all" is just not going to work. Here's a list of insurers by State and their ranking in each State.




    Are you saying that American insurance companies currently have compassion for the patients? I strongly disagree with that statement. Their job is to make a profit, not to hand out money.[/Quote]


    jeskill; There purpose ("job") is to collect money from as many people as they can, that want to hedge against the cost of future medical service. It's a statistical/average calculation, that has served, MILLIONS Americans (trying to emphasize ONE difference between Canada and the US*) for generations. People that grow food, in hopes someone will consume that food, ALSO hope to make a profit, would you also Nationalize Agriculture or is food less important than Health Care?


    No. As you've already stated, unnecessary operations occur due to defensive medicine. I'm going to be honest and say that I don't know much about American tort laws regarding defensive medicine.[/Quote]


    Except for what's interpreted in the US Constitution (IMO Nothing) or National Laws/Regulation found Constitutional, each State controls acceptable limits (if any) for actual damages (harm done) or punitive damages, usually awarded to a victim to punish the accused and it varies greatly. Our problem is ANYBODY can sue any medical person, without a monetary risk, looser pays nothing in most all States, if not all.


    My intuition is that defensive medicine is less of a problem in a universal health care system because the patient or insurance company is less likely to sue to obtain money they didn't spend in the first place. It would be interesting to see some more educated thoughts on that. [/Quote]


    I don't know how my thoughts are thought of, or do I really care, but it would be same problem, unless it's somehow all under the Federal or with massive HC Tort Reform, which won't happen anytime soon. It's very difficult to sue Government, but any other entity would probably have more problems, with increased traffic, alone.


    The concept of hospitals, state-run insurance systems being run as not-for-profit stems from a value system that believes basic health care service should be a human right. [/Quote]


    To my knowledge, nobody in the US can be denied HC service today, regardless where their from or said another way, are turned away left to die on the streets, the common analogy. I don't think US States are in any better shape to handle HC, than the Federal or capable of making Doctor/Patient decisions which can't be allowed under any National Program.

    I do have some idea's, for improvement through State Governments (or Districts as in School Districts), under some kind of Insurance Cooperation, other infrastructure and Medical doctors cooperation....for another time.


    *The population of Canada about 34 Million,

  3. The incentive to make a profit is really the main problem with US health care, IMO. It's fine for doctors and other skilled workers to make a profit for providing the service, but the prices in US health care are so bloated because everyone's trying to take a cut. Hospitals are not there to improve people's health -- they're there to sell the most expensive medical care they can think of, whether you need it or not. Conversely, insurance companies are trying to make sure that they make a profit, sometimes at the expense of people who desperately need health care. [/Quote]


    jeskill, since off topic I'll briefly respond to your comments. The price of US Healthcare is " so bloated", for a number of reasons, including primarily practicing defensive medicine, in the event of lawsuits, those lawsuits, the cost of insuring every person in the field and it might just be the best on the planet that 310 Million people can depend on. People working in "Hospitals" or more importantly working in the medical profession, have spent time being educated and practicing to care for others and somebody signs off on every single medication or treatment used, that was then FOR the patient. I would think, a reliable medical care system, would be the MOST appreciated by people who "desperately need health care". Frankly, I'm not sure US Government workers, who earn near twice the private sector worker (pay/perks/retirement packages) could show any more compassion.


    I mean, doesn't it strike anyone as immoral to be earning money in the stockmarket because either a) someone was denied coverage that could've improved or extended their life, or b) someone overpaid for an unnecessary operation? [/Quote]


    I appreciate your comments and opinions, but do you really think any member in the medical field, before acting, is concerned about profits or purposely perform operations for the profit? They all have co-workers and would be soon gone...For the record and to your arguments, PATIENT'S are more likely to be the cause for your scenario, then for medications.


    As for immoral, under Obamacare, as I understand it, a person or family will be permitted to pay a fine (fraction of actual insurance cost), but when diagnosed or having health problems, can't be denied full coverage.


    Healthcare would be less expensive and more oriented towards doing what is right for the patient (regardless of their income) if the insurance system and the hospitals were run as not-for-profit organizations. [/Quote]


    Well, this is on topic and I'd like to hear your model for medical service, from a "not-for-profit organization"? Maybe the Red Cross, some religious or humanitarian operation could be implemented. Many are already in existence in the US, working from donations or the many Trust Funds, set up just for this, but I don't see how it could work for so many people.

  4. amanda, I think your hearing about the weekly jobs report, which for some reason, have been lowered after the initial reports the following week, fairly consistently. GDP figures are commonly mixed up between, real quarterly GDP and Annually adjusted estimates, which for 2011 have been lowered several times, to my knowledge from every agency that makes such projections.


    WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve cut its economic growth forecast for the second time this year, reducing its estimate of 2011 gross domestic product growth to a range of 2.7% to 2.9%, down from 3.1% to 3.3% in April and 3.4% to 3.9% in January. It’s also cut its 2012 forecast from this lower base, to a level showing 3.3% to 3.7% growth from the 3.5% to 4.2% growth that the Fed forecast in April. The Fed is expecting core inflation between 1.5% to 1.8% this year, up from 1.3% to 1.6% previously, and for the price index for personal consumption expenditures to climb between 2.3% and 2.5%, vs. the April projection of 2.1% to 2.8%. It’s also more worried about unemployment, forecasting the 2011 jobless rate between 8.6% and 8.9% vs. April’s estimate of 8.4% to 8.7% unemployment rate.[/Quote]



  5. United Health Group, is the largest US provider with over 70 Million people covered and employing about 87,000 full time workers, in all 50 States and territories. In their mix of plans, a person, family or business can provide insurance coverage from Catastrophic (commonly meaning very high deductible) to full coverage (commonly meaning lower deductibles and extended, with dental, eye care and so on) and in most States, under group policy, they can't even ask for pre-existing conditions when covering an employee and his/her family.




    By virtue of their policy holders and investors, they have a Market Cap of nearly 50B$, with reserve cash and assets on hand to cover most any major health care event, concerning only those involved. They as with most all larger providers or providers of any insurance, carry back up insurance, meaning they insure themselves from those potential events, Berkshire Hathaway being one major re-insurer. They do currently pay a dividend of 1.4% (.65/y) and have appreciated considerably, since starting out in 1990 as a penny stock.




    While there are hundreds of differences between how a Business/Corporation operates and a Government, IMO the major drivers are the incentive to MAKE A PROFIT and to successfully maintain and operated a service based organization and the continuity of management, driven by a concerned board of directors and CONSUMER participation.


    Now for those of you here, thinking the Federal Government can in some manner replace the current providers (single payer system) for 310 Million Americans, here is a partial list of what your trying to eliminate....



    The following health insurance companies/managed care organizations are shown with their overall Fortune 500 ranking as a US company (2008):

    1. UnitedHealth Group - 25

    2. WellPoint - 33

    3. Aetna - 85

    4. Humana - 98

    5. Cigna - 141

    6. Health Net - 179

    7. Coventry Health Care - 266

    8. Amerigroup - 555

    9. Universal American - 669

    10. Centene - 685[/Quote]




    The above is meant to be informational, not confrontational and now to the threads premise;


    I think the federal government is the perfect place to handle a risk pool like health insurance.[/Quote]


    Phil; First the current program, called Obamacare, would have to be repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the courts, either possible and either could be after the current Government is voted out and my continuous problem with the Federal Government being involved with any State Obligation, IMO under the Constitution. THEN a plan to handle the "risk pool" can be addressed.


    Since we have "risk pools" for many things, currently "flood insurance" is being talked about where the Federal will insure bad behavior, building on flood prone areas. Don't you think insurance companies that are already organized, have the experience, at a cost, would insure those risk factors, be it building in flood zones or pre-existing conditions, they all do anyway, today? Smokers to coal mine workers, can get private insurance.

  6. GOP hopeful Gov. Rick Perry drew fire from some quarters earlier over a remark, reported by ABC News’ The Note blog, that “a ‘big black cloud’ hangs over the country.”


    As it turns out, Perry’s remark was much more specific. While he did use the phrase “big black cloud,” he was referring explicitly to the debt, as the full video of Perry’s remark reveals.[/Quote]




    iNow; While this is the extreme, most any political speech can be reviewed or commented on, other than the intent of the speech.


    How the Highway Beautification Act Became a Law


    In announcing an America the Beautiful initiative in January 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) said:

    I want to make sure that the America we see from these major highways is a beautiful America.


    The cornerstone of the initiative would be the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, which called for control of outdoor advertising, including removal of certain types of signs, along the Nation's growing Interstate System and the existing Federal-aid primary system. It also required certain junkyards along Interstate or primary highways to be removed or screened and encouraged scenic enhancement and roadside development.[/Quote]




    I'm not sure, the US Constitution indicates such decisions are in the Federals jurisdiction, to command.


    The Coinage Act or the Mint Act, passed by the United States Congress on April 2, 1792, established the United States Mint and regulated the coinage of the United States.[1] The long title of the legislation is An act establishing a mint, and regulating the Coins of the United States. This act established the silver dollar as the unit of money in the United States, declared it to be lawful tender, and created a decimal system for U.S. currency.[2][/Quote]




    Powers of Congress;


    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;[/Quote]




    If you have established an account, you can buy directly from the US Mint. For instance the latest set of US Presidents, eight coins/packaging, my estimated cost to mint and package $8.00 or less, for 20.00 or from coin shops for a little more. From an above link "Some 2.4 billion dollar coins have been minted since the start of the program in 2007, costing taxpayers about $720 million", giving an approximate cost for those 8, dollar coins...$2.40.




    As mentioned, I certainly think the program, as contracted (quantity) has been NOT been well handled. I can't verify, but would bet Congress expected a large return on the this one program, the CBO then using those expectation, increasing estimated revenues with some spending program in mind. Let me guess...which party was in charge of Congress, in 2007?


    Phi, has started a reasonable post on Healthcare, so why don't you start one on "Social Justice"? Both issues are viable, especially NOW into an election year, where either issue might determine the outcome...especially State and Locals.

  7. Phil; So you don't misunderstand, I've enjoyed (appreciated) our little debate and it's not possible to offend me. I know where I am and knowingly encouraged your adversary participation. Having said that, this thread is drawing few viewers, a waste of both our times and literally going nowhere. I'll give you a reply, asking you take an issue or two to a new thread, since I really don't have the time to follow up authoring new threads, myself....or frankly the popularity.


    On the NPR thing; Far too often, news outlets use edited sound bites or edit programming to promote some agenda. Limbaugh seems to be a prime target and often, his comments on air and the one quoted come off with the exact opposite meaning.



    Well since my first real business was a Coin Shop (1960), with a couple first (in store teletype and first in State "Coin Show") and I still have about 20K$ worth of Morgan Dollars, let me add a little to your NPR article. Minting coinage is the Federal Governments obligation, not the Federal Reserve and has long been used to produce a profit. Susan B Anthony Dollars, Eisenhower Dollars, Proof/Mint Sets, along with a host of Commemorative Coins, have been issued by Government, knowing whatever was charged (always above cost to mint) would show a profit and for the Federal. I'd agree the program was mishandled, probably because no numismatic was involved, but as your article indicates, the potential is there. In fact, if I was 20 years younger, I'd be buying up those already minted, feeling a full set when completed to Obama, if it continues (stopping when contract up would be foolish, IMO) could be extremely profitable, for some. For the nit-pickers, the Anthony Dollar was minted, in hopes it would be used, but never was...


    from your link;

    Some 2.4 billion dollar coins have been minted since the start of the program in 2007, costing taxpayers about $720 million. The government has made about $680 million in profit by selling some 1.4 billion dollar coins to the public since the program began.[/Quote]


    Keep America Beautiful started when Eisenhower was president, but it didn't really get national attention and federal sponsorship for public service announcements until Lyndon Johnson's wife Lady Bird joined the group. Her endorsement was a federal effort I'm proud to have been a part of. To this day I can't stand to see people littering.[/Quote]


    Yes he was in office, but the program is credited elsewhere and I remember it well. As for "Lady Bird", that's a far different issue, bringing into the picture mandatory regulation IMO, hurting progress that had been made. I could bring in Wal Mart and Waste Management, not many years later though before regulation, did a great deal along the line conservation, but another issue.


    Keep America Beautiful was founded in 1953 by consortium of American businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and concerned individuals[citation needed] in reaction to the growing problem of highway litter that followed the construction of the Interstate Highway System, and an increasingly mobile and convenience-oriented American consumer. The goal of the organization was to reduce litter through public education and advertising.[/Quote]




    You mentioned wealthy business owners and wealthy workers in the same sentence. I felt that wasn't an adjective that could be used fairly in that context.[/Quote]


    In all honesty, this 'social justice" issue seems to be an obsession for many people, but in the real world, there has to be the wealthy to produce a middle class. This has always been an American thing, where any person can achieve their own objectives in life and millions from here or that came here, have done just that. To somehow say they don't deserve whatever is feared they have, is simply ridiculous.


    We have tens of thousands, maybe millions involved in Entertainment or Sports alone, that are rarely mention, but by branding their name have gained success. I mentioned a couple workers (using your words) that achieved extraordinary wealth for themselves or their families and I have no idea how many there are that worked hard (for somebody else), invested wisely and worth millions, not to mention agriculture (farmers) or small/middle size business people that may not have taken a day off in years, just to accomplish something.


    I was referring to the Medicare Modernization Act. No one has ever adequately explained why it's good for Medicare not to be able to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical companies. It jars with my free market sensibilities, just like no-bid contracts do.[/Quote]


    You not talking all drugs, since I think Wal Mart, Walgreens and others now offer thousands of Drugs to everyone for really reduced prices. As for the Act itself, it probably has more to do with some body in Government playing the "Death Panel" card on 2003. I'm kind of torn between two sides on this, since some of these new medications or treatments involve thousands of dollars per day, to save people for, sometimes a week or so. Medical people will tell you, other treatment that started out to do the same (heart transplants) have developed into longer lasting life spans, five years and more.


    In the years since Medicare's creation in 1965, the role of prescription drugs in U.S. patient care has significantly increased. As new and expensive drugs have come into use, patients, particularly senior citizens for whom Medicare was designed, have found prescriptions harder to afford. The MMA is meant to address this problem.


    The benefit is funded in a complex way, reflecting the diverse priorities of the lobbyists and constituencies whose support was needed:


    it provides a subsidy for large employers to discourage them from eliminating private prescription coverage to retired workers (a key AARP goal; the 2005 Annual Report for IBM estimates that company will receive a $400 million subsidy during the six-year period beginning in 2006);[4]

    it prohibits the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies;

    it prevents the government from establishing a formulary, though does not prevent private providers such as HMOs from doing so.


    As of 2007, most employer sponsors had chosen to take the retiree drug subsidy and continue offering drug benefits.[[/Quote]




    Take the best run private health insurance company (let's call it Insuricare).[/Quote]


    Maybe you should start a thread on Healthcare, maybe even Obamacare; The only thing about what to many people is or would be "Free Health Care", is prevention and it's hard for me to visualize people taking advantage of free check ups or for Government to allow check ups for many items, which can come early in life. Then the real problem for me is many, maybe most people, are actively involved with some bad habit, hobby or profession, knowing they are taking health risk!!!

  8. NPR does a great job of coming at their stories from all sides, being especially sensitive to NOT having a special interest. If there is any bias, it might come from a perspective of being open to learning, which many call "liberal".[/Quote]


    That's not what I'm hearing or what I think Williams would agree with but as said, I just don't watch the network. To do so, would be like so many I know, some here, that rarely or never watch Fox or listen to Rush Limbaugh, yet often condemn them, hypocritical in my mind.


    And personally, if I see a person in traditional Muslim clothing on a plane, that's the person I would least suspect as a terrorist. I'd look for the guy who doesn't want to stand out.[/Quote]


    It's the psychology of seeing the dress/attire, a reminder of the event so to speak. Obviously those 19/20 involved with US Airplanes were trying to fit in, as would anyone wanting to harm American's for whatever reason.


    You're about a decade off in your reckoning. The 50s and 60s in the US were some of the worst years for pollution in our history. [/Quote]


    They probably WERE THE worst and the point of my statement, however my antidotal experiences was intended to show the people or if you prefer local governments, acted without regulation. They increased putting in road side rest area's, with trash cans, some just along the roadway, towns that had not already doing so, began trash pick up were doing so and there were constant media articles for business to clean up there act. Yes, I also remember trips into California, well into the 70's, where smog was terrible but with your indulgence, I'll suggest the clean up and needed private technology was improving all along.


    You throw out so many red herrings! Why wouldn't NY want clean water and air just like NM? For things that are national, what's so bad about national laws? And politicians are supposed to represent what WE want, even though lately they cater more to the needs of big business, which brings us now full circle t%o my original arguments.[/Quote]


    The Red Herring thing is your opinion and why these are my final arguments for this thread. The point was, people in the Federal Government cannot justly regulate the difference is the entire society of 50 States, with entirely different needs and I'll add some VERY different enforcement policy.


    I don't even know where to start with this statement. You use the same word "wealthy" to describe both the business owners and the people who work for them. That is completely incompatible with what I know to be true, and what I see from many sources. In fact, the CEOs from the top 200 US companies are making 27% more now than they were in 2010, because they saved the company so much money by firing US workers and moved those jobs overseas. Their workers wages (those that still have a job) didn't even keep up with inflation. [/Quote]


    What's a "Red Herring" anyway; I gave you an analogy you have twice twisted it, to fit your argument. To give a reply justice, it would take a week, but I summarize one. People, both in business or those that work for others, by saving, investing or other means can do quite well over a lifetime. There are a whole lot of folks that during that lifetime try and fail in some business venture, sometimes more than once, not equaling what some workers accomplish. Many of the CEO's and CFO's your trying to condemn for being successful, STARTED out as an employee or took the risk involved to begin one. For instance Fred Smith CEO and founder of Fedex, started out as an USPD employee and nearly went under a couple times. Sam Walton, deceased but founder of Wal Mart, worked for some dime store of his day, if not Ben Franklin like them. On disposable incomes, there are many reason, labor has suffered including the cost to even employ a person and local taxes.


    I said it earlier, Medicare today has been strangled by legislation enacted under Bush. The present system is understaffed and underfunded. But there is no reason why we can't set it up to function as well as a health insurance company, without denying claims (we can do this because it wouldn't have to profit stockholders).


    Sure so it can cost more like my privatized utilities. [/Quote]


    I'm not sure what Bush had to do with Medicare/Medicaid or any of Johnson's "Great Society" programs, other than "Prescription Drugs" (already addressed), but you might look to the Democratic Congressional actions from about 1965 to 1994, which greatly increased the benefits and yes under both R and D Presidents.


    It's hard to figure out your argument, your telling me Government (that draws all income from the people) can operate as efficiently as the private sector (draws income from only those involved), yet Government already denies more service, then the private sector. Said another way, Government today could service everyone, their obligated to and simply increase payroll taxes to meet the needs, but won't.


    Not wanting to research the 50 States, who are authorized to provide services, you might check out whom is making up the difference, especially labor and current/future obligation for that labor. Over the past 50 years or so many services have been outsource or privatized by States to save labor cost, in many cases also the cost of maintenance.


    Phi for All; I want to commend you for your debating skills, which came as a surprise to me and hope you will consider producing threads or at least post on more political issues. For the most part you stuck to the issues, without showing too much emotion and for me, that's what makes for good debate.


    For this thread however, the above are my final arguments, normally not offered (I just stop), but know you spent some time working on them. I'll be looking forward to seeing more of your work, down here in Politics and wonder why you haven't been more involved, all along.

  9. Jackson 33 your idea's do interest me, I think that presents 2 major schools of thought no matter which model you believe, either A) The Universe developed from a singularity or B) Matter in abundance has always been there.

    I know Pantheory has said there is no conclusive evidence, but if there is not then why such bias/focus towards an inflation/expansion theory surely there must be a reason? [/Quote]


    Diamond; A- The following links are the most current model explanations of the BB, that I can find and they explain expansion from simple reactions from 13.7 B/Y/A, on to the current idea that expansion is due to other forces, called "dark energy", I believe answering your other question on expansion.


    B- It's only my opinion, even Fred Hoyle disagreed (briefly; felt Hydrogen was created in space to regenerate matter) that all that goes into matter is limited to what's always been or could be. That is, matter exist today in various stages (Solids/Liquid/Gas), changing states under certain phenomenon/process, I believe happens under yet unexplained gravitational principles, probably due to star formation...


    Also, I'm skeptical of expansion itself, primarily because of the explained causes and added theory, over years to justify it. Age and distance, for the most part are based on luminosity and that alone to me, questions the Red/Blue Shifts (1842 theory "doppler effect") explanation being applicable, in this case.


    I don't want to, in anyway to discourage your apparent interest and feel very strongly that science itself is based on questioning the acceptable, but there are many people on this forum, more qualified than myself, to explain BBT in a manner you might accept.





    This timeline of the Big Bang describes the history of the universe according to the prevailing scientific theory of how the universe came into being, using the cosmological time parameter of comoving coordinates. The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from an extremely high energy density is known as the Big Bang.

    The best available measurements as of 2011 suggest that the initial conditions occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.[1][2] It is convenient to divide the evolution of the universe since then into three phases. The very early universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth.[/Quote]





    A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1][/Quote]




    Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy. [/Quote]





    About the only thing that I can think of that my model has in common with the BB model is that they both have a beginning. The BB beginning was 13.7 Billion years ago, and the beginning for my model was about 1.4 trillion years ago minimum. I've done the calculations.[/Quote]


    pantheory; It's that beginning that worries me. If BBT, put the age of the U (it has increased over the years), at 1.4 trillion years ago, I'd still have the same problem, that singularity existed and had to come from someplace....But then you have a good deal of thought behind your model and it's not for me to try and change your mind.

  10. pantheory; Although most of your definition/explanation, should already be known to argue or discuss the issue, I do thank you for your time. As said, in my first reply to you, you seem to have formed an opinion (model) contrary or based on the premise of BBT, which in my mind was never a stand alone, viable theory. There are many theory, including "String", "Multiple BB" or even a "Pulsating Universe", that have been used, but the folks in the OP Link, seemed to believe in some form of Steady State, generally what I think is probable.


    On time and your axiom (nothing can start from nothing), I've always had trouble separating the two, in that whatever that something is/was, has a time period of existence. Your BH's, the Singularity or even the Creationist God, in each case the only conclusion I can draw is an eternal existence, in turn meaning time in either direction, must be eternal.


    My own opinion, falls right in line with SSU or that the Universe (everything out there) has always existed, that everything we see or understand today, could have been argued if Planet Earth, humans and our rather primitive brains, had existed (as is) 100T/Y/A or in fact 100T/Y in the future.


    Again thanks, for your time and reply....

  11. My own model is of a universe trillions of years old but not infinite or eternal in any way. All of the theory is tied together by theory, reasoning, and observations.[/Quote]


    pantheory; Since some might be interested, including Diamond, please briefly, explain how you feel the U came into existence, if not eternal. When suggesting the appearance of what's known today, may not have always been, it's difficult to theorize how anything can evolve without near the same basic mass make up, much less from nothing. Thanks in advance.

  12. Obviously, the head of NPR felt the same way you do about people who won't follow company policy.[/Quote]


    Phil, then you agree NPR is bias, which from what I hear, is correct. I do kind of wonder saying what Williams did say (uncomfortable) about Muslim clad passengers on an Airplane, after 19 Muslim Radicals successfully downed four planes and another one tried to down a plane heading into Detroit, is a just cause for firing their only Black News Analyst, Commentator and most certainly a loyal liberal.


    It is strange that people are complaining because Obama is doing exactly what he promised in his campaign. Why didn't they complain when Bush II campaigned on a return to Reagan Republicanism and then changed completely and proceeded to grow the federal government, become the world's police, double the national debt, and pass a 700B prescription bill for Medicare/Medicaid, the very same program the Tea Party wants to do away with now? Why wasn't that spending bad then like it is now?[/Quote]


    Another GOOD example, that people only listen to what they want to hear, thanks. The problem here and I WAS politically involved in 2000, was GWB claimed to be a Compassionate Conservative. I warned people then, but I could hardly promote Al Gore, over GWB, could I?


    As for the prescription drug fiasco, no child left behind, faith based initiatives, TARP and a few other domestic issues, I've complained just as much as anyone, often on this forum. You might remember the "Unfunded Prescription Drug" debt from other threads now over 20T$, was around 16T$ when I first mentioned, at the bottom of the time this link....




    "Definitely your opinion." Yes, with some experience. I remember going on vacations in the 40's, with my parents, seeing smoke rising from people burning their own trash, roadside trash on every highway and black smoke/plumes of emissions from every business smoke stack. I remember as all this ceased to be in the later 50's and 60's, as local authorities did their thing, generally without any regulation, certainly NONE from the Federal. We didn't need Government telling us what to do, what light bulbs we could buy or what to eat....


    Who determines what we deserve? We do. Don't we all deserve to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat food that's had some high-criteria inspection done on it to make sure it's as good as we've been told? And since everyone can't be a business owner (who would be the workers?), isn't it in our own best interests to create programs that help people get by a little better? Because unlike you, I don't consider non-business owners to be failures (I can't believe you said that!). [/Quote]


    Who is we, in a country of 310M people, with very diverse needs and cost of livings. Should we all live like those in NYC, where it might take 5K$ or more, to live like I do here in Southern NM for about a thousand a month. Should what any person deserves be decided by politicians, who could be gone after any two year cycle, as it was intended or some department head that only has their own life experiences to work with, determining some regulations meaning.


    I'm not aware of anyone promoting dirty water or air to breath and every business has a quality control department, of some kind, especially those involved with food/drink and they have been around, long before the Federal Inspectors.


    If you educate yourself, work hard, play by the rules and somehow create a business, employing thousands, that generates a few billion dollars of wealth, are you then obligated to pay for my failure?[/Quote] My words...


    The analogy used for you, was not intended to imply what your thinking, but the extreme and under today's spin, those being attacked. There are a whole lot more wealthy workers, than there are wealthy business owners to start with and many business owners fail, some many times, dying relatively poor I might add especially in past few years.


    As I said before, some things are better without a profit motive and the attitudes it creates. Personally, I'd rather not have a for-profit insurance company tell me that I'm not covered for my health problems because they've determined it wouldn't be profitable. If it were handled the right way, Medicare would be a perfect use of a taxpayer risk pool. If we didn't pass laws to hobble its purchasing power or cut its funding to make it look bad, Medicare could be something to be proud of, something we could all deserve. The same with the EPA or the FDA or other government agencies and programs that have been systematically degraded. [/Quote]


    Of course you know, your asking for socialized medicine, possibly under the single payer system and your end cost via taxes will be much greater OR quality (coverage) greatly reduced. As for your chances today of being denied medical service, it's statistically greater under the Government, than through the private sector.


    What none of these politicians will tell you is that the largest insurance claim denier in the United States is the federal government by way of Medicare. Shocking, no? The way we’re all told, the federal government treats absolutely everyone on Medicaid and Medicare and we’re told that ObamaCare will continue this high level of treatment.[/Quote]




    As to degrading the EPA/FDA or other Federal Agencies, I'd really like to know where all the added Federal employees over the past 3 years are going, not to mention the increased pay scale and future obligations involved.


    "Over the time that President Obama has been in office, we have lost 2.5 million free enterprise system jobs, and, yet, 500,000 federal government jobs have been added."[/Quote]




    Personally, I'd like to see SS/Medicare/Medicaid privatized, completely under the private sector and the Federal Government put back on track with it's intended purpose...

  13. Phil; Juan was fired, over the phone, according to him, for his appearances on the "Bill O'Reilly" show. Head's of any concern, set the policy for that concern or might do so at the request or command of others, companies can fail or succeed on this alone. By choice, I don't watch or listen to NPR, therefore I can't speak to the journalistic integrity, but I do recall in my years of managing small business, I NEVER hired a person, I felt would not follow my policy or the policies of the company involved.


    That's a big part of what's wrong these days. People listen to pundits saying things they already agree with and want to hear, rather than journalists who try to bring a story to the people with as little special slant as possible. [/Quote]


    Well IMO most people don't listen/read, to much of anything classified as news, but those that do, of course WANT to hear things they agree with. I'd validate this with the election of Obama, who said exactly what he has helped get enacted and those that elected him are now complaining...


    I'm sure there are many regulations which need to be adjusted. I'm also sure there are many that keep my drinking water and air cleaner for me, so forgive me if I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Because the baby is going to want to drink and breath too when he grows up. [/Quote]


    The people that purify your local drinking water or business that sequester their exhaust emission have long been concerned (well before EPA or any Government regulation) and are more concerned with your opinions than any Federal Government.


    You prefer to look at it as "taking wealth from private sector". I prefer to look at it as creating a resource pool to share things we all deserve. It should be a benefit living in a prosperous society with a high and growing technological level.[/Quote]


    And just who determines "Things we all deserve" or what we don't all deserve, or better yet at what point is a person responsible to and for themselves? If you educate yourself, work hard, play by the rules and somehow create a business, employing thousands, that generates a few billion dollars of wealth, are you then obligated to pay for my failure? That's just not why this country has thrived over so many generations or in fact the principles it was founded on, individualism!!! They didn't want the King of England to choose their destiny and I don't want the Federal, making the choice.


    I think this is a case where Big Agra beat Big Oil in the special interest race. But I see no benefit from it. It seems a stupid use of our resources. [/Quote]


    Maybe but remember not many years ago, farm subsidies were paid to farmers, NOT to grow, in this case, corn. This was to maintain a certain price level, around 2$/B as was sugar and you might not know what all the food you drink/eat involves one or both, keeping prices stable. That is, it probably was the politicians, that introduced ethanol into the equation, to be seen as reducing dependency on foreign oil, while not exploiting our own, for other reason, creating the unintended consequences. I do agree, there has been "benefit from it", to the contrary, very costly to the price of food, worldwide.



    swansont; The subsidies were paid according to what ethanol was produced, shipped and blended from the times involved, increasing usage (%) over the years. I could do some research on this, but with the exception of a few years of lower crude prices, in turn gas prices, keeping the price down a few cents IMO was more beneficial to the economy, when the prices are/were higher....

  14. If it's profitable with the subsidy at $2 a gallon, why isn't it profitable at $4 a gallon? Seems to me that if ethanol were energy-positive you should be making $1.50 a gallon in profit when you sold it at $4 a gallon. You could sell it for less, and that would drop the price of gas. [/Quote]


    swansont; I'm sorry sir, but I've lost your point. Refineries or oil companies profits are no more than 10% of sales, profits at 1.50/G , 15 cents and at 4$/G about 40 cents. The subsidy was to keep retail prices down, during both periods doing more so, at the higher price, 40 vs. 15 cents. I'm sure you know many oil producing countries subsides their own usage, including Mexico, where Americans can cross the border, buying American refined Gasoline at much cheaper prices, than in the US.

  15. I am a cosmologist and theoretical physicist of the second order (little recognized). I've been creating theories since the late 1950's. I have never believed in the BB model. There was a time in my early teens when I adhered to Hoyle's steady state model. Since that time I have developed my own theory which can be found by using any search engine looking for the Pan Theory. My own theory I believe is vastly simpler than the BB model or the steady state model. In my own model I allow for some quasars to be at distances different than their redshifts would indicate, similar to what the scientists in the video believe should be considered. [/Quote]




    pantheory; Sorry I missed this from an earlier post, as my interest/education on the issue also stems from the 40's/50's, but went on with other lifetime career's in Business, long retired. A couple things;


    Having only quickly scanned through your theory, I'm thinking you are/were making the same mistakes, as Fred Hoyle did, in trying to link arguments with BBT, rather than to build on any version of an Eternal Universe, Steady or Static State Models. When on this issue, from my layman's approach, a strong believer in the "always existed/never ending" ideas, I preferred building on what was actually the acceptable theory, before about 1930.


    For instance; Rather than accepting nucleosynthisis as a solo stellar event, or 'H" needing to be replaced, I've always thought stable elements can and do break down, either over time or the more probable during extreme heat/pressure as stars are formed. This all meaning atoms in the U have never changed, not needing to be replaced. Even the idea that during early expansion, under BBT and as space cooled creating Hydrogen/Helium, would seem to agree in theory.


    Later my interest were again stimulated, when seemingly well formed Spiral Galaxies were apparently photographed up to 8 or so TLY away, Elliptical's then classified older. If true IMO, this would indicate a much older and stable Universe. That is they could not exist together 8BY ago, with an U age of 13.5BYO. Somebody earlier mentioned the James Webb Telescope, now planned for 2018 and I believe actual pictures (opposed to artist illustrations/IMO guesses) will show much greater detain, possibly to 10-12BLY away, showing much the same. I don't know the expectations for exposures or times required per photon, but from long distances today, are very low....


    My skepticism, doesn't mean the U has always existed as is today or maybe a few trillion years ago, but that what the U is made of today, in some manner as always existed.

  16. Same can, really, since the methods by which we receive information about government and food supplying corporations seems tainted by the difference between journalism and marketing. Subsidized public media at least has the profit angle removed. I trust the journalistic integrity of NPR more than I do Fox News.[/Quote]


    Oh my goodness Phil and with all the scandal that has been revealed, including Juan Williams now a prominent member of the Fox News Team???


    NPR chief Vivian Schiller ousted amid video scandal.[/Quote]




    I think there are some things that are in conflict with motives involving profit. News should be as presented with as few special interests as possible. I don't see how that can happen when your boss also happens to own the company you want to do the investigative report on.[/Quote]


    Media is simply a for profit industry and must cater to the most profitable segment/niche of the consumer audience or advertisers they can attract. It's always been this way in the US, but so long as competition remains viable (fairness doctrine, gone), people are welcome to see, listen or read any media they wish, including some really biased internet sites.



    I believe in a fair market and its ability to weather most economies, but I feel that corporations have too much influence on political and economic processes. It tips the scales too much in their favor and when it comes to food, water and air regulations, I don't trust a pure profit angle to keep the market fair. [/Quote]


    If you mean the "Free Market" then yes, those forces can and have survived many economic downturns, but if those forces are regulation from Government, with the intention to destroy free market principles (control) then those involved will naturally evolve to better places to practice, that is move.


    I don't know if your heading toward AGW, but Industry via competitive technology to improvement has allowed the additional availability of food and water to many places on the planet. Fresh water from salt water in the Middle East, to increased harvest per acre and not just in the US. While for business the incentive is to succeed or make money (generate wealth), Government can only exist by taking wealth from private sector....

  17. Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles[11] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[12][/Quote]


    Peron, Arp a skeptic in his day, remained so till his death and was not convinced. Much as was Fred Hoyle, was NOT convinced on his death around 2003. I'm not qualified to break down the arguments opposed to Lerner's theory, but I would suggest none of these folks were hostile and most certainly believed they were the rational ones in a field of frenzy to prove something, that just might be wrong...that's all any skeptic is saying.


    Correction; Halton Arp, is still alive, age 84.....



    Sorry, but you don't get to pass the buck like this. The way you framed the question, you are definitely questioning the BB theory. [/Quote]


    swansont; What is science, if NOT questioning even the acceptable. How do you think BBT came about in the first place, disregarding the creationist theory or a need for a beginning of existence, as folks questioned the acceptable, some form of an eternal Universal Existence?


    As for Diamond's thread, it's based on the links provided, some 15 or so short tubes, which I'm sure you watched all of them and they made some valid points, from people that fought this BBT, in many way's changing the "USED" and acceptable models, from the start.


    My two cents...

  18. swansont; If a subsidy makes sense with gasoline at 2.00/G and if the subsidy help control cost, thereby the market price, while increasing usage, to my aging mind, it would be more important to subsidize at the higher price.


    Transportation is costly, if Government requires a Company to increase cost IMO, they should pay the cost, period. I do agree the consumer, in the end pays for everything, but Governments (State/Federal) might take regulation into consideration, BEFORE being imposed. As for water being easily absorbed, whatever the reason they don't build pipelines, for pure ethanol, would seem to be the cost or some unsure factor.



    ScienceDaily (Aug. 3, 2011) — U.S. production of ethanol for fuel has been rising quickly, topping 13 billion gallons in 2010. With the usual rail, truck and barge transport methods under potential strain, existing gas pipelines might be an efficient alternative for moving this renewable fuel around the country. But researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) caution that ethanol, and especially the bacteria sometimes found in it, can dramatically degrade pipelines.[/Quote]




    Public/private is beside the point, but the government can probably claim commerce clause.[/Quote]


    I'll assume you would favor Government take over the Energy Sector in the US or at least not oppose and you could write the post, you know I would, if was worth my time. Unfortunately, if SOMEHOW, Obamacare is found Constitutional and/or not repealed BY January 2013, that will certainly be tried. That's unadulterated Socialism and not what I think you want, for your descendents, I hope.


    I don't see the connection to corporate welfare.[/Quote]


    It's an either/or scenario; Exxon and all the major private Oil Companies, have long paid out dividends that influence an economy, while Apple has 72B$ invested or placed in liquid assets (called, Cash on hand). I happen to think the Oil Companies and their said 8M generated jobs, are doing more good than harm.


    My point was that media consolidation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows these behemoth corporations to own media outlets. Before that, to own television, radio and newspapers, that had to be your only business.[/Quote]


    Phil; That's another can of worms, but you would have to explain why you feel it's OK for Government to subsidize Public Radio/Television or regulate some "over the public airways" content and not OK, for business to form conglomerates? I'm not particularly a fan of vertical monopolies, but I see no reason why GE, Warren Buffett (Bershire Hathaway Inc.) or any of today's International Giants, should not be allowed to diversify. I also would agree with a recent court ruling, in that they can have and voice political opinions....

  19. I'm using this as my source as I understand these guy's are fully qualified scientists, I'd like to know your rebuttals on their claims.[/Quote]


    Diamond; First thanks for bringing back that documentary, which according to the credits was produced in 2003 and since IMO, the arguments to explain BBT, have leaned toward Science Fiction. It almost makes me want to reengage in the discussion, which hooked me on these science forums years ago when SSU was not classified "Speculation".


    As the documentary mentioned in no uncertain terms, any questioning of BBT, by the way named "The Big Bang", by Fred Hoyle (a contributor), can only draw evasive comments based on your UNDERSTANDING, questioning or at best a repeat of "said" facts that support an unsupportable theory.


    Anyway, I'll be looking forward to seeing any qualified response, in particular from "Martin" whom is one that could answer without degrading the integrity of the poster. ALSO, welcome to the forum and good luck....

  20. How much in government subsidies were sent Apple's way? XOM made more than $30 Billion in profit last fiscal year. Apple made $14 B. What share of the $4 billion in annual oil subsidies did XOM get, and why is that necessary?


    (BTW the market caps are about $360 B, but that's not important to the discussion) [/Quote]


    swansont; Yes, the 4 should have been a 3 and an error, not caught in a reread...


    Out of curiosity, do you feel a steady flow of fuel that drives industry, should even be in the private sector? If your answer is no, then advocate to nationalize the sector, as Maxine Waters has suggested and I'll have more to say...




    If your answer in yes, it should be in the private sector, then explain under what authority Government can dictate an operation (blending ethanol into gasoline), while not wanting to be blamed for the increased price, without a subsidy? Back when this nonsense first got started, I believe all produced ethanol had to be trucked (would corrode the then pipelines), which alone IMO, cost more than ever received.


    Now lets play with the numbers some more; Apple paid -0- dividends, although has certainly grown their Company. Exxon has about 5B outstanding shares* and paid a little less than 2.00/S**, in the last 4 quarters or about 9B$ to millions of stock holders and I have no idea how many sub-contractors they employ, do much the same....








    Corporations have too much political clout which allows them to circumvent smart regulations, they have more money than some small nations, and every president from Reagan to Bush to Clinton has worked to give them control of the media as well. You can control just about anything if you control both Congress and the media.[/Quote]


    Phil; The Companies we're talking about are today and have been in part since before WWII, (FDR/Truman/Eisenhower/JFK forward) international concerns. I would think, in the best interest of a free Nation, the people (management/workers), investors, stock holders and consumers of these companies represent, should be listened to by every concerned politician. It's a National Interest to keep these companies, based in the US and there is no law or regulation that can enforce them staying. In fact you probably have no idea how much you buy, is owned or produced outside the US, already...for instance;


    What's more all-American than a Bud with a shot of Wild Turkey? Something that's actually made and owned by U.S. companies. We take a look at some iconic American brands that aren't, well, American anymore.


    American icon: Anheuser Busch


    Owner: Belgian-based InBev.[/Quote]




    Has any of this come to pass? There are better ways, than these resource intensive schemes, to beneficially utilize waste biomass and create biofuels.[/Quote]


    Essay, nothing worth mentioning, to my knowledge. Every so often you'll hear or read about a small business producing biofuels, using themselves, think "Waste Management" as some active projects ongoing, but they all seem to lack cost efficiency. One possible reason might be wood pulp, which at one time did get some attention, is also used for paper products and most silage can be stored and used to feed animal stock or even if not green, used as a fertilizer...

  21. I was under the impression that corn is overproduced in North America -- and that this is the main reason we use HFCS instead of other forms of sugar, are growing corn for ethanol, use corn as feed for cows, salmon, etc. IMO, our dependence on corn for a lot of things unrelated to healthy food is limiting our ability to eat healthy and grow food sustainably. [/Quote]


    jeskill, your link is interesting, but wonder when it was written. Here is another viewpoint on why the US started to subsidies blending corn ethanol into Gas, mainly to compete with the Brazian Sugar product. Keep in mind while doing your research, that corn futures until mid-2007 were under 2.50/B, then generally under 4.00/B until mid-2010. I can't rule out US$ inflation, as the Brazilian Real has maintained its value.



    Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefit from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more.[17] (US corn-ethanol producers are also shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff[18][19])[/Quote]




    What do you mean by "Big business welfare"? Does this relate to food business or is it just a general term? [/Quote]


    General Term, will work. I'm just so sick of hearing people making over 200K/Y, that have their own plane or may have built estates over a million dollars are so evil. Did you know Apple Computer and Exxon/Mobil have about the same value, about 460B$, but when have you heard anything bad about Apple, yet Apple nets about 25% in profits, Exxon 10%?


    I'd rather see research done into alternatives. The problem isn't regulation, it's how the regs were manipulated to use ethanol rather than something that makes more sense. [/Quote]



    Phil; It's only fair to mention another side the issue, since we have a 30-100 or more year, bridge to cross, getting to realistic alternatives to fossil fuels, if it's even practical, needed or possible. Here are some examples, that if addressed 30 years ago, could be what corn/sugar fuels are today....IMO.


    A big step forward came last week with the opening of the nation’s first ­demonstration-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Jennings, La. The facility, built by Cambridge, Mass.-based Verenium Corp., will use high-tech enzymes to make 1.4 million gallons per year of ethanol from the cellulose in sugar cane bagasse, a waste product.[/Quote]




    Cellulosic ethanol is a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants.[/Quote]



  22. I'm not so sure about this argument. When gas was up much higher 2 years ago, it prompted a flurry of development into alternatives. I think a 45 cent/gallon spike right now would result in more interest, something the oil companies seem determined to stall. [/Quote]


    Hi Phil; I certainly didn't do a very good job, with that explanation, sorry. If the 45 cent subsidy to blend into, say 20 gallons of gasoline fuel can't be covered by other means, at most each gallon would be raised is about 2 cents. Not trying to be precise, making a point, the cost to refine gas for California, over that of say Montana is probably 10-15 cents per gallon higher already, because of States mandates. Oil futures are determined by markets, not necessarily the oil companies, but the refinery prices are determined by actual cost to produce, what ever the final product is, Gasoline to California, to fuel oil for Nebraska.


    The farmers are selling their corn for the most money. Cut the subsidies for inefficient corn to ethanol production and there will be more corn for food. [/Quote]


    No, without repealing regulation that mandates the use of ethanol, cutting the subsidies will not cut the demand for corn, which dictates the price, the subsidies are meaningless. As an above link/post (#5) indicates 30B$ over 30 years of taxpayer support is trivial to a trillion dollar business.


    While you're at it, cut the subsidies for expensive US sugar and perhaps the land will be more productive for food crops. The US can import foreign sugar, which is half the price, so the consumer benefits. The manufacturers of sweet products can go back to using real sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup, so there will be more benefits to consumers, manufacturers, and even more corn to use as real food. [/Quote]


    I can't argue you points, but remember Brazil is using Sugar Cain, to produce what we call ethanol and Cuban Sugar Cain is still off limits. They also have an active "Energy Policy" which the US has none. I haven't seen this years US corn harvest reports, but the planting reports were all records, as will be harvested bushels per acre.


    A three-decade-long alternative energy campaign has outfitted Brazilian filling stations with fuel pumps that offer pure ethanol, a blend of gasoline and 20% ethanol called gasohol, or even natural gas. This year, Brazil will achieve energy independence — a goal the United States has been chasing without success since the energy crises of the 1970s.[/Quote]






    OK. So can we say that the people of this thread agree that corn ethanol subsidies and mandated usages should be discarded? [/Quote]


    jeskill; I don't think so, most think if the subsidies are discontinued, corn will be somehow available for food, which is simply not true. As you say it, this would happen, but Congress has shown do desire to cut any pertinent regulation and politicians needing an enemy for the 2012 Election, have chose "big business welfare", subsidies....

  23. The current steep growth in ethanol consumption is being driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a nationwide renewable fuels standard requiring use of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, requiring 36 billion gallons of annual renewable fuel use by 2022. Of this requirement, 16 billion gallons must be advanced biofuels, defined as renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%.[10][27][28][/Quote]




    swansont; My post was meant as "FYI", not an argument. I'd assumed you already understood, ethanol subsidies were based on mandated usage, but your post indicates otherwise. Since this requirement is increasing and will be increased, the percentage of use when first mandated and blended, was minimal per refined gallon of gasoline, compared to today.


    As for food or food commodity pricing, the only way to bring these down is to eliminate the mandates, which has nothing to do with the subsidies.



    (Yes, it was field corn rather than the more edible sweet corn, but it's still a staggering amount.) [/Quote]


    JohnB; Field corn is most often used to produce animal feed, the easiest, cheapest to grow, harvest and can be grown anyplace sweet corn is grown (Not necessarily the reverse). Where many other crops are grown (cotton/wheat/sorghum or other grains and beans), corn could be grown, causing other food prices to increase, including animal food (pork/beef) which are also near all time high levels...


    If US fossil fuel policy is going to be "Green" and/or an increased usage of ethanol is the object, they best start looking at alternative none food materials, for a primary source, if it's not already too late. For another thread....

  24. Reality; Look at it from an employers viewpoint...If you raise the cost to employ one person by 2%, say for SS, the employer would also need to add 2%. Regardless the amount, if you have 100, a 1000 or more, that end raised cost without question, will cost even more jobs.


    Taxes on everybody, in some manner will happen, out of necessity to meet future obligations, but this is simply not the right time, noting other programs that will cost much more...

  25. Most "Ethanol Subsidies", actually go to oil refineries to blend ethanol into a final product. If you cut that subsidy, without changing the regulation, it would likely increase the cost up .45 cents per gallon, for the final product. Those involved in growing corn only wish to maintain the higher commodity price, the process increasing demand, which will not change.


    There are two pieces of legislation set to expire at the end of this year. One is the 45 cent per gallon subsidy (called the VEETC) that is paid to oil companies to blend ethanol into gasoline. Because the oil companies are also mandated to blend ethanol, the subsidy is mostly redundant.[/Quote]




    Explains current action Congressional actions...


    On the other side of the corn field, National Cattlemens Beef Association (NCBA) President Bill Donald called the vote “a giant step toward leveling the playing field for a bushel of corn” noting that cattle producers “support our nation’s commitment to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But after 30 years and more than $30 billion in taxpayer support, the day has come to let the mature corn-based ethanol industry stand on its own two feet.”[/Quote]



    Today's cost per bushel 7.43, slightly off it's all time high of 7.99.



  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.