Business Man versus Politico as President

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Do you really think balancing the budget of single largest entity in the world is as simple as balancing a business ledger?
I think it far better than continuing to accrue debt at the rate of $500,000,000 per year. Who do you think is going to inherit that debt?

In any case, the government has attempted t become all things to all people. It is not working. We need somebody will to commit political suicide and make the tough calls required to scale back our yearly out pouring of cash. Do we really need seven aircraft carriers. Do we really need a fighter that costs $420,000,000 per plane? Do we need a military budget that out spends the next ten nations combined (eight of whom are our allies)? Do we still need honey subsidies? Get rid of the solar and wind credits immediately. If those technologies are not economically viable on their own they don't need government help. And the list goes on.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Well, every president since and including Regan have driven the country deeper and deeper into debt. Maybe if somebody can quit racking up the debt then we could start paying it off.

Insanity: Do the same thing over and over in hopes that you will get a different result. I vote to try something different. Better or not remains to be determined, but it is at least different.

I'm no fan of out of control spending or massive national debt, either. But from the looks of it we already are run "like a business." What kind of business is the real question. Maybe the business mentality's helped get us into this mess.
 

Quetzal

New member
I think it far better than continuing to accrue debt at the rate of $500,000,000 per year. Who do you think is going to inherit that debt?

In any case, the government has attempted t become all things to all people. It is not working. We need somebody will to commit political suicide and make the tough calls required to scale back our yearly out pouring of cash. Do we really need seven aircraft carriers. Do we really need a fighter that costs $420,000,000 per plane? Do we need a military budget that out spends the next ten nations combined (eight of whom are our allies)? Do we still need honey subsidies? Get rid of the solar and wind credits immediately. If those technologies are not economically viable on their own they don't need government help. And the list goes on.
If you want to cut military spending, that's fine. Heck, I agree with you. But the second a large portion of out military gets laid off due to budget cuts is going to be the day of riots from conservatives that we don't treat our veterans right. I don't mind your argument, just understand it will be part of that process.
 

Quetzal

New member
Get rid of the solar and wind credits immediately. If those technologies are not economically viable on their own they don't need government help. And the list goes on.
Really? You would want to de-fund renewable energy? Talk about a short sighted idea.
 

rexlunae

New member
I think it far better than continuing to accrue debt at the rate of $500,000,000 per year. Who do you think is going to inherit that debt?

It's probably true that the rate of debt is unsustainable. However, we've already done a lot of budget cuts/guts, and with a growing population, and a growing disparity between the rich and the poor, we really need to raise taxes to cover some of the things that we do. We should not balance the budget on the backs of the poor.

In any case, the government has attempted t become all things to all people. It is not working.

It especially doesn't work when one of the main political parties sets as its agenda an effort to sabotage the efforts that actually help the people who need it.

We need somebody will to commit political suicide and make the tough calls required to scale back our yearly out pouring of cash. Do we really need seven aircraft carriers. Do we really need a fighter that costs $420,000,000 per plane? Do we need a military budget that out spends the next ten nations combined (eight of whom are our allies)? Do we still need honey subsidies?

We should have listened to Eisenhower.

Get rid of the solar and wind credits immediately. If those technologies are not economically viable on their own they don't need government help. And the list goes on.

That's absurd, in no small part because we invest so little in them already. The problem is not the viability of solar and wind. The problem is industrial resistance. A lot of the utility companies have large investments in dirty tech, and it actually hurts their bottom line to undermine them, even as the price for green and greener energy drops. If you just built a new coal-fired power plant, you don't want to see a natural gas plant, or a solar plant until you get your ROI from the plant you have. And you certainly don't want to see rooftop solar take away some of your customers.

This is actually a pretty good example of how the government isn't a business. The reasons to push green energy technologies aren't bottom-line drive. They're environmentally driven. We want to avoid causing irreparable harm to the planet, which is an undeniable public good, and even in the long run an economic one and a strategic one. There's a barrier to entry that we have to overcome, and the government, when properly applied, can be the impetus to overcome it. Wind and solar, after a moderate upfront investment, provide relatively free energy.
 

Mocking You

New member
Maybe it should be run a bit more like a business. Business has to run on balanced books. If they are in the red to long, they fail.

Yes, but government is not in the business of selling things. And they can always raise taxes. Governments can be in debt, and for a long time. The analogy between the government and a household or the government and a business, while easy for the masses to grasp, is bound to be flawed.

The problem isn't debt, after all, there's always new taxpayers to take on that burden. The problem is when debt is always increasing. The best course would be to make a 30 year plan to reduce debt. This would resonate with taxpayers who have 30 year mortgages. Don't try to take it down in a hurry. Have a glide path. This would require running budget surpluses this entire time, even if it was just a little bit, it would help. That means definite budget cuts as well as tax increases, and curtailment of future benefits.

But I don't think any politician alive has the guts or the means to implement this strategy.
 

Daniel1611

New member
No plan will end the debt without eliminating fiat currency and the Fed. You can cut as much spending as you want and raise taxes, it still won't work if we keep the Fed system.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Really? You would want to de-fund renewable energy? Talk about a short sighted idea.
I am an electrical engineer working with renewable energy. The technology is not viable which is why it receives government funding. SOme intereisting facts for you regarding the cost of electric power: (Note: these prices are from a news article I read several years ago.)

Generation Costs:
Coal: $0.06/kwh
Gas: $0.12/kwh
Nuclear: $0.25/kwh
Solar: $0.99/kwh
Wind $1.72/kwh

Solar doesn't work at nigh and wind doesn't work when there is no wind. Wind also does not work unless there is a large thermal or hydor power station on-line. The renewable assets lead to uncontrollable system stability when they provide 25% of the power on a system.

The technologies are not economically viable as nobody will pay for wind power. Look at your electrical bill and multiply it by 1.72/0.06. Simply put, wind power is 29 times more expensive than coal. If your bill is $50.00 per month for energy that would jump to $1,450 per month. Would you pay that?

There is nothing short sighted about de-funding renewable energy. That is the right thing to do. When it matures and is able to economically compete with other energy sources it will come to market and will not require support from the tax payer in order for companies to make their money.

I found this table that has more up to date pricing:
Dja52SIDNXgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==


It can be found here.
 
Last edited:

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
It's probably true that the rate of debt is unsustainable. However, we've already done a lot of budget cuts/guts, and with a growing population, and a growing disparity between the rich and the poor, we really need to raise taxes to cover some of the things that we do. We should not balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
Its not. Its balanced on the back of the middle class.

That's absurd, in no small part because we invest so little in them already. The problem is not the viability of solar and wind. The problem is industrial resistance. A lot of the utility companies have large investments in dirty tech, and it actually hurts their bottom line to undermine them, even as the price for green and greener energy drops. If you just built a new coal-fired power plant, you don't want to see a natural gas plant, or a solar plant until you get your ROI from the plant you have. And you certainly don't want to see rooftop solar take away some of your customers.
I would rather see the money go towards rehabing schools and other infrastructure.

This is actually a pretty good example of how the government isn't a business.
Electric utilities are a business. The government owns and operates the large dams. The transmission and other power generation is all privately owned except for municipalities that own and operate their own systems.

The reasons to push green energy technologies aren't bottom-line drive. They're environmentally driven. We want to avoid causing irreparable harm to the planet, which is an undeniable public good, and even in the long run an economic one and a strategic one. There's a barrier to entry that we have to overcome, and the government, when properly applied, can be the impetus to overcome it. Wind and solar, after a moderate upfront investment, provide relatively free energy.
Up front costs for solar and wind are far from moderate. As an electrical engineer working in the renewable industry, I would never install roof top solar. With the changing regulations, it has a negative pay-back meaning you NEVER recover your initial investment. If you wish to invest because it makes you feel like you are doing something good for the planet, go ahead. For those that build and operate large wind and solar projects, rest assured, it is ALL about profit.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Yes, but government is not in the business of selling things. And they can always raise taxes. Governments can be in debt, and for a long time. The analogy between the government and a household or the government and a business, while easy for the masses to grasp, is bound to be flawed.

The problem isn't debt, after all, there's always new taxpayers to take on that burden. The problem is when debt is always increasing. The best course would be to make a 30 year plan to reduce debt. This would resonate with taxpayers who have 30 year mortgages. Don't try to take it down in a hurry. Have a glide path. This would require running budget surpluses this entire time, even if it was just a little bit, it would help. That means definite budget cuts as well as tax increases, and curtailment of future benefits.

But I don't think any politician alive has the guts or the means to implement this strategy.
Two points: Greece and Porto Rico.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
What do you think of geothermal or wave power?
Geo thermal is a good source of energy. I like what I have seen there.

As far as wave power goes, you don't get something for nothing. The power in the waves is converted into electrical power thus reducing the power in the wave. It has been discovered that large wind farms alter the local weather patterns and can make the land near them dry out to the point that it can't be farmed. We do not know how harnessing wave power will effect the shores in these areas.
 

Daniel1611

New member
Geo thermal is a good source of energy. I like what I have seen there.

As far as wave power goes, you don't get something for nothing. The power in the waves is converted into electrical power thus reducing the power in the wave. It has been discovered that large wind farms alter the local weather patterns and can make the land near them dry out to the point that it can't be farmed. We do not know how harnessing wave power will effect the shores in these areas.

I read about them before and thought they sounded really good. That's a good point about the wave power.
 

Quetzal

New member
I am an electrical engineer working with renewable energy. The technology is not viable which is why it receives government funding. SOme intereisting facts for you regarding the cost of electric power: (Note: these prices are from a news article I read several years ago.)

Generation Costs:
Coal: $0.06/kwh
Gas: $0.12/kwh
Nuclear: $0.25/kwh
Solar: $0.99/kwh
Wind $1.72/kwh

Solar doesn't work at nigh and wind doesn't work when there is no wind. Wind also does not work unless there is a large thermal or hydor power station on-line. The renewable assets lead to uncontrollable system stability when they provide 25% of the power on a system.

The technologies are not economically viable as nobody will pay for wind power. Look at your electrical bill and multiply it by 1.72/0.06. Simply put, wind power is 29 times more expensive than coal. If your bill is $50.00 per month for energy that would jump to $1,450 per month. Would you pay that?

There is nothing short sighted about de-funding renewable energy. That is the right thing to do. When it matures and is able to economically compete with other energy sources it will come to market and will not require support from the tax payer in order for companies to make their money.
But... they need funds to continue to research and develop prototypes to make it viable. Which is not possible without government funding.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
But... they need funds to continue to research and develop prototypes to make it viable. Which is not possible without government funding.
Sure it is. Westinghouse and Edison and GE did what they did with private money. Why can't wind and solar? Short answer: there other lobbies driving the renewable bus.
 

rexlunae

New member
Its not. Its balanced on the back of the middle class.

The programs that keep coming up on the chopping block are largely for the poor (e.g. school lunches, SNAP and other direct assistance, unemployment). Although, it's true that we simply can't balance the budget on the backs of the poor because there literally isn't enough money in those programs. Of course, the real prize for conservatives is entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, but they often hesitate to actually call for that because it's vastly unpopular, even within their base.

I would rather see the money go towards rehabing schools and other infrastructure.

It's not an either/or proposition. We can fund green energy and schools and infrastructure. If we don't have the money, tax the rich.

Electric utilities are a business.

Kinda. They are heavily regulated monopolies.

The government owns and operates the large dams. The transmission and other power generation is all privately owned except for municipalities that own and operate their own systems.

I'm a little unclear on the relevance.

Up front costs for solar and wind are far from moderate.

You can finance the installation of rooftop solar with a monthly cost less than the savings when you factor in the relatively small tax credit. But it's a high enough cost that a large number of people simply don't have the credit for it. That's where solar leases and PPAs can help, but those arrangements leave the people who use them with long-term commitments that include cost increases.

I'd like to see the government subsidize low-income housing with solar as a basic feature. There are few things more liberating than cutting out a regular monthly expense.

As an electrical engineer working in the renewable industry, I would never install roof top solar. With the changing regulations, it has a negative pay-back meaning you NEVER recover your initial investment.

As the purchaser of a home solar electrical system, I can assure you that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course the economic calculus varies by state, but for me, it's been an enormous savings from day 1, in addition to offsetting a lot of my carbon footprint.

If you wish to invest because it makes you feel like you are doing something good for the planet, go ahead. For those that build and operate large wind and solar projects, rest assured, it is ALL about profit.

Of course, the companies that build these green energy projects need to make money. Who cares? But the point is, the reason that these technologies for generating green power are becoming affordable for the average person is that the government has subsidized them extensively. The price for home solar has dropped by whole factors in the last few years, and the growth has been enormous. If there aren't some folks making their daily bread off of it, it wouldn't happen.
 

Quetzal

New member
Sure it is. Westinghouse and Edison and GE did what they did with private money. Why can't wind and solar? Short answer: there other lobbies driving the renewable bus.
How long ago did that happen? Despite you being in this industry, you are too ready to rely on a finite resource. Also, as far as federal funding goes, it takes up a very very very small piece of the pie.
 

Mocking You

New member
Two points: Greece and Porto Rico.

Not a valid comparison. The U.S. controls their own money supply. They can control the interest rates. The U.S. economy is much, much larger than these two economies. Greece and Puerto Rico cannot do this. (I realize Puerto Rico is a territory of the U.S.)

These two examples show what happens when your countries debt keeps expanding. We've got a long way to go before our debt is so large that other nations quit buying our bonds.
 
Top