Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[OnePercenter]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

Unlike private investment instruments your Social Security didn't lose value when BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America crashed the world economy in 2007.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

agree, but SS is working and could continue working if the greedy assholes in congress would stop stealing the money that they forced us to put into the SS program for our entire working lives.

You mean Republicans?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTG Communists. Wiping out the Middle Class in California. It's so sad and ironic that the Leftists who supposedly despise the Rich, are only hurting the Non-Rich with this awful legislation. Middle Class folks will struggle bigtime to handle the costs of adding solar panels.

California is headed for disaster. Only the very rich and very poor will be welcome there. The Middle Class, which pays the bills, will no longer be welcome. They'll be forced to leave the state. California will eventually resemble Communist messes like Venezuela, Cuba, and so on. It's very sad.

liberalism is a failed ideology, never works, never will. What's amazing is that the liberal mind is unable to comprehend that simple truth.

SS must be a conservative concept then

Your latest 'Solar Panel' legislation in California only hurts Middle Class folks. The very rich can easily afford them. It's just another disastrous Communist fail out there.

Nonsense. If middle class can afford a new house in California than middle class can afford a slightly more expensive house with tiny electrical bills.

No. Most people who buy a home buy the best one their money can afford. So with such laws, people will have to buy not as nice or large of a home that they originally wanted to pay for those panels.

 

[OnePercenter]

Two reasons idiot:

1. It is not cheaper than fossil fuel. Not when you look at all the cost, direct and indirect. If you think it is then you are confused Moon Bat.

2. You are getting welfare payments in the form of subsidies that somebody else has to pay for.

You Moon Bats are not too bight, are you?

Asshole you still didn’t answer how come you never before cared what people spend their Republican tax-cuts. Do hookers and blow self-finance better than solar power?

If it's that great a financial deal, then why does government need to use guns to force it's citizens to buy them?

1. Lets note that you are switching gears instead of directly responding to what you quoted.

2. Because it involves long term planning and greater social issues that people are usually bad at. It's the same reason why we "need to use guns to force" people to participate in (very popular) SS and Medicare programs.

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

SS and Medicare are working and popular.

Sorry that reality is not to your liking, but you are just going to have find some sane way to deal with it.

Keep in mind that Bripat is Canadian and without doubt one of the many paid Canadian posters on the USMB.

 

[OnePercenter]

What's with the Calif bashing?? do you live there? is this a new talking point that serves what ? because its home to more liberals than cons?

Most are Canadians that are pissed that California's GDP is high than theirs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fund could encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions.

That was Reagan, 35+ years ago.

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that it's a wealth re-distribution program that's run inefficiently and is the one of the main drivers of our national debt.

NOPE, that's false.

SS is operationally VERY efficient with overhead at just 0.7% compared to about 8-10% if you look at any private insurance system.

SS trust fund balance is positive, which means public has paid more into the system than was paid out of it. And the reason why if nothing is done it will turn negative has nothing to do with inefficiency it has to do with there being more retired people that need to be covered.

Here is what you do. Every year or so, SS sends out a pamphlet telling what you and your employer(s) contributed to the fund, and also what you could collect if you retired today.

Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask what you would be worth today if all that money had been invested in the market all these years.

The problem with SS is that it gained very little interest. Unlike insurance companies, they just put the money under a mattress and let it sit there. With insurance companies, they take your premium money and invest it to help offset claims. Insurance companies increase premiums as costs go up. SS just sat there as our average lifespan increased.

 

[OnePercenter]

No more free choice. They decide, you kneel.

Fortune: California to Require Solar Panels for All New Homes

Actually being forced to buy power from the state utility that has a monopoly on the power is communism but thanks for playing

If the power was State owned you'd have a point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

Not only that, but take your money, and if you die before using it, not give one dime to your heirs.

 

[OnePercenter]

[QUO

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

Liberals are too dumb and lazy to plan for their own lives so they want some stupid bureaucrat (whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by greedy special interest groups) to plan and manage their lives for them.

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

These stupid solar panels are another example. The Liberals wants the stupid government to subsidize something that wouldn't be economically viable in the free market. On top of that the dumbshits want to have the government to force you buy the idiot solar cells that don't really work very well.

Liberals are the dumbest assholes on the planet.

Why wouldn't one want to take advantage of a subsidy program you paid for with your taxes? Corporate America does.

 

[OnePercenter]

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

Not only that, but take your money, and if you die before using it, not give one dime to your heirs.

What other public retirement program pays heirs?

 

[OnePercenter]

WTG Communists. Wiping out the Middle Class in California. It's so sad and ironic that the Leftists who supposedly despise the Rich, are only hurting the Non-Rich with this awful legislation. Middle Class folks will struggle bigtime to handle the costs of adding solar panels.

California is headed for disaster. Only the very rich and very poor will be welcome there. The Middle Class, which pays the bills, will no longer be welcome. They'll be forced to leave the state. California will eventually resemble Communist messes like Venezuela, Cuba, and so on. It's very sad.

Corporate America and Republicans are trying to wipe-out the middle-class nationwide.

 

[OnePercenter]

Asshole you still didn’t answer how come you never before cared what people spend their Republican tax-cuts. Do hookers and blow self-finance better than solar power?

If it's that great a financial deal, then why does government need to use guns to force it's citizens to buy them?

1. Lets note that you are switching gears instead of directly responding to what you quoted.

2. Because it involves long term planning and greater social issues that people are usually bad at. It's the same reason why we "need to use guns to force" people to participate in (very popular) SS and Medicare programs.

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

SS and Medicare are working and popular.

Sorry that reality is not to your liking, but you are just going to have find some sane way to deal with it.

SS and Medicair are working to bankrupting this country. That's the leftwing conception of a successful government program.

Is "Medicair" a Canadian spelling? You must be from the "east side."

 

[OnePercenter]

SS and Medicare are working and popular.

Sorry that reality is not to your liking, but you are just going to have find some sane way to deal with it.

What's your definition of "working" in this instance?

The snowflake definition of "success" is making millions of seniors dependent on it so they will vote Democrat.

Or is it the fact that in 2007 BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America effectively wiped out many Americans private retirement accounts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

Not only that, but take your money, and if you die before using it, not give one dime to your heirs.

What other public retirement program pays heirs?

None. That's the point.

 

[bripat9643]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

Unlike private investment instruments your Social Security didn't lose value when BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America crashed the world economy in 2007.

If the money you pay into Social Security was put into an IRA instead, we would all be millionaires when we retired - even if you include the effect of the stock market crash.

 

[bripat9643]

SS and Medicare are working and popular.

Sorry that reality is not to your liking, but you are just going to have find some sane way to deal with it.

What's your definition of "working" in this instance?

The snowflake definition of "success" is making millions of seniors dependent on it so they will vote Democrat.

Or is it the fact that in 2007 BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America effectively wiped out many Americans private retirement accounts.

No they didn't. If you stayed in the market, you would be in a much better position now than before the crash.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

Unlike private investment instruments your Social Security didn't lose value when BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America crashed the world economy in 2007.

If the money you pay into Social Security was put into an IRA instead, we would all be millionaires when we retired - even if you include the effect of the stock market crash.

And actually, if you played your cards the right way, the crash would have been very beneficial.

The company that handles our IRA at work kept accepting contributions, but didn't invest it when the market was sinking. Once it showed signs of life and a positive trend, they dumped that money into the market. It was like a buy one get one free deal. They bought more shares for less money, and of course, the market recovered well past the point it was at when it started to fall apart.

 

[AntonToo]

As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fund could encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions.

That was Reagan, 35+ years ago.

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that it's a wealth re-distribution program that's run inefficiently and is the one of the main drivers of our national debt.

NOPE, that's false.

SS is operationally VERY efficient with overhead at just 0.7% compared to about 8-10% if you look at any private insurance system.

SS trust fund balance is positive, which means public has paid more into the system than was paid out of it. And the reason why if nothing is done it will turn negative has nothing to do with inefficiency it has to do with there being more retired people that need to be covered.

Here is what you do. Every year or so, SS sends out a pamphlet telling what you and your employer(s) contributed to the fund, and also what you could collect if you retired today.

Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask what you would be worth today if all that money had been invested in the market all these years.

The problem with SS is that it gained very little interest. Unlike insurance companies, they just put the money under a mattress and let it sit there. With insurance companies, they take your premium money and invest it to help offset claims. Insurance companies increase premiums as costs go up. SS just sat there as our average lifespan increased.

And if stock market crashes tommorow....?

 

[bripat9643]

As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fund could encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions.

That was Reagan, 35+ years ago.

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that it's a wealth re-distribution program that's run inefficiently and is the one of the main drivers of our national debt.

NOPE, that's false.

SS is operationally VERY efficient with overhead at just 0.7% compared to about 8-10% if you look at any private insurance system.

SS trust fund balance is positive, which means public has paid more into the system than was paid out of it. And the reason why if nothing is done it will turn negative has nothing to do with inefficiency it has to do with there being more retired people that need to be covered.

Here is what you do. Every year or so, SS sends out a pamphlet telling what you and your employer(s) contributed to the fund, and also what you could collect if you retired today.

Take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company, and ask what you would be worth today if all that money had been invested in the market all these years.

The problem with SS is that it gained very little interest. Unlike insurance companies, they just put the money under a mattress and let it sit there. With insurance companies, they take your premium money and invest it to help offset claims. Insurance companies increase premiums as costs go up. SS just sat there as our average lifespan increased.

And if stock market crashes tommorow....?

You'll still be much better off than with Social Security, which leaves you with nothing.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No more free choice. They decide, you kneel.

Fortune: California to Require Solar Panels for All New Homes

Same slippery slope when they required cars to have seat belts.

Never heard of an accident involving a non solar home. Got a link?