Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[AntonToo]

It's not true at all. The panels produce 80% more than the cost of production over their usable life.

you are a victim of left wing propaganda, if that is true, why does the government have to subsidize the solar industry at every step of the process and then subsidize the homeowner to get him to buy them?

I will have broken even on my system in about 4-6 years. Without the tax rebate I'd be looking at 7-8 years. I have also increased the value of my home.

I'm happy that you believe that.

It's not a belief, it's reality. I've compared my utility bills before my system was set up and I've seen my monthly savings and done the math. You're kind of the one coming from a place of ignorance, not me.

OK, great. I live in south Louisiana where we have lots of sunshine most of the year. Several of my neighbors have solar systems and not one of them has had that kind of result. Now, to be fair, with the federal and state subsidies they were almost free, but someone paid the entire bill ------------------guess who? you and me, and every other American taxpayer.

If solar was financially viable, there would be no need for subsidies, because the profit motive would put them on the market at competitive prices. That's my only point here

ook - what kind of result DID they have?

 

[bripat9643]

A lot of conservatives in this forum seem to have a mental block when it comes to Social Security. They just an't admit that it's a huge swindel.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

Your source is a commie propaganda organ. Citing it only proves that you are gullible.

If you dont like CBPP, there are plenty of other sources, such as university of chicago.
The nice thing about facts, is there are plenty of places to find them.

I'm sure there are numerous commie propaganda orgains that will make the same claim.

 

[bripat9643]

When the government issues a security to itself, how much has it increased the assets of the government?

When the government issues a security to itself, how much has it increased the assets of the government?

By exactly the same amount it has increased the liabilities of the government.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. That's how much the Trust Fund is worth.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

 

[Redfish]

you are a victim of left wing propaganda, if that is true, why does the government have to subsidize the solar industry at every step of the process and then subsidize the homeowner to get him to buy them?

I will have broken even on my system in about 4-6 years. Without the tax rebate I'd be looking at 7-8 years. I have also increased the value of my home.

I'm happy that you believe that.

It's not a belief, it's reality. I've compared my utility bills before my system was set up and I've seen my monthly savings and done the math. You're kind of the one coming from a place of ignorance, not me.

OK, great. I live in south Louisiana where we have lots of sunshine most of the year. Several of my neighbors have solar systems and not one of them has had that kind of result. Now, to be fair, with the federal and state subsidies they were almost free, but someone paid the entire bill ------------------guess who? you and me, and every other American taxpayer.

If solar was financially viable, there would be no need for subsidies, because the profit motive would put them on the market at competitive prices. That's my only point here

ook - what kind of result DID they have?

$50-60 per month saving on their power bill. $600-720 per year. out of pocket cost to them about $4000 after state and federalsubsidies. break even point, 65-80 months. 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 years assuming no repair or maintenance costs. but that does not include the $16000 or so paid by us taxpayers for the system. the math is not complicated unless you are trying to justify a fairytale.

 

[Redfish]

When the government issues a security to itself, how much has it increased the assets of the government?

By exactly the same amount it has increased the liabilities of the government.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. That's how much the Trust Fund is worth.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

kinda like talking to a garden slug, isn't it?

 

[HappyJoy]

We consider full employment at around 5% because that is the number of people in flux within the market at any given time.

wrong that 5% statistic means that 95% of the people who want to work have a job. note "who want to work". The actual unemployment rate is more like 20% when you consider retired people, students, people with physical and mental handicaps, high school drop outs hanging out on the street corners, and those who are just plain too lazy to work.

The employment rate is a measure of those in or who wish to be in the labor market.
It's not and has never been a measure of all able bodied Americans who could work.

5% is considered full as there is always a percentage between jobs for one reason or another at any given time.

once again, you are buying into the propaganda. your choice.

Once again, I say, post your proof or fuck off.
I gave you a link. You've given nothing.

It's known what the output of a panel is over it's lifetime. You need to find the power cost of production for that panel and compare.

I don't need to prove anything, I am merely questioning the "solar is wonderful" rhetoric, you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

tell me why subsidies are necessary to get anyone to buy solar. If the payback is as you say, but its not. and you know it.

Looks like you just made a claim.

Subsidized solar has been slowly being rolled back

We consider full employment at around 5% because that is the number of people in flux within the market at any given time.

wrong that 5% statistic means that 95% of the people who want to work have a job. note "who want to work". The actual unemployment rate is more like 20% when you consider retired people, students, people with physical and mental handicaps, high school drop outs hanging out on the street corners, and those who are just plain too lazy to work.

The employment rate is a measure of those in or who wish to be in the labor market.
It's not and has never been a measure of all able bodied Americans who could work.

5% is considered full as there is always a percentage between jobs for one reason or another at any given time.

once again, you are buying into the propaganda. your choice.

Once again, I say, post your proof or fuck off.
I gave you a link. You've given nothing.

It's known what the output of a panel is over it's lifetime. You need to find the power cost of production for that panel and compare.

I don't need to prove anything, I am merely questioning the "solar is wonderful" rhetoric, you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

tell me why subsidies are necessary to get anyone to buy solar. If the payback is as you say, but its not. and you know it.

All energy is subsidized, so why would you want to kneecap solar?

Here is a great article, you'll hate it.

The Truth About Solar Subsidies

Here is an excerpt from the article:

It can be said that comparing solar subsidies to coal or nuclear subsidies is like “comparing apples and oranges.” A true side-by-side comparison can be very hard to make, considering all of the variables and all of the differences between the different energy sectors. There is one thing that everyone can agree on, though. David Hochschild, a California Energy Commissioner said it best:

“There is a myth around subsidies, but there is no such thing as an unsubsidized unit of energy.”

Hochschild was speaking at the Energy Productivity Summer Study in 2016. He made the case that energy production, be it renewable or fossil, is subsidized to some degree by the government. Hochschild showed a graph that shows the accumulated energy subsidies in the US under federal programs, starting in 1918. Oil and gas and nuclear are historically the biggest winners in the subsidy game. Federal renewable energy subsidies are a small fraction. “The fossil fuel industry hates to talk about that,” said Hochschild.

Here is a chart from that article:

Here is some more shit for you to ignore from the article:

As of 2015, before the presidential election, the US federal government was allocating only about $5 billion to energy research, which is a small fraction of what competitors like China spend annually on energy R&D. The funding was distributed like this:

• Nuclear – $1 billion
• Coal and carbon sequestration research- $350 million
• Solar – $188 million
• Wind – $90 million
• Oil and gas research – $25 million

The research dollars for nuclear and coal far outstrip the funding for solar, and always have. However, one solar project above all others gave solar R & D investments a bad name: Solyndra.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We are at full employment. Obviously immigrants aren't taking any jobs people care to do.

Well we haven't been at full employment the last 30 years or so.

So you're saying there's a labor shortage then?

Where did you get that from? I said we haven't been at full employment since the illegals have been here. They've been here when jobs were scarce taking our work.

Full employment has never meant 0%.

it should; full employment of resources should be market recognizable; not just, capital friendly.

0% is impossible. There will always be people who are between jobs at any give time.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We consider full employment at around 5% because that is the number of people in flux within the market at any given time.

wrong that 5% statistic means that 95% of the people who want to work have a job. note "who want to work". The actual unemployment rate is more like 20% when you consider retired people, students, people with physical and mental handicaps, high school drop outs hanging out on the street corners, and those who are just plain too lazy to work.

The employment rate is a measure of those in or who wish to be in the labor market.
It's not and has never been a measure of all able bodied Americans who could work.

5% is considered full as there is always a percentage between jobs for one reason or another at any given time.

once again, you are buying into the propaganda. your choice.

Once again, I say, post your proof or fuck off.
I gave you a link. You've given nothing.

It's known what the output of a panel is over it's lifetime. You need to find the power cost of production for that panel and compare.

I don't need to prove anything, I am merely questioning the "solar is wonderful" rhetoric, you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

tell me why subsidies are necessary to get anyone to buy solar. If the payback is as you say, but its not. and you know it.

This was your claim, dope.

once again, you are buying into the propaganda. your choice.

Prove its propaganda.



The subsidies are to offset the initial cost of the system. They're meant to incentivize wider use of solar. They have not a thing to do with the the amount of power required to make the panels themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. That's how much the Trust Fund is worth.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

kinda like talking to a garden slug, isn't it?

Yes. They just keep repeating the same talking points over and over even after they have been told those claims are lies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save,

Saving is a lot harder when the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings...…..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most of the rest of the world also willingly, or unwillingly gave up their legally owned guns, and embraced Socialism. Most Americans, especially Republicans aren't sheep like much of the world. The reasons we are Americans. We're different, and don't go along with every government power, and money grab.

A nonsensical response. More like your party tends to attract those who either have a financial stake in fossil fuels or are simply not smart enough to grasp the actual science.

your party tends to attract those who either have a financial stake in fossil fuels

Cheap, energy dense, convenient.
The entire country has a financial stake in fossil fuels.

Investments, dope.

Savings, moron.

Don't try to tell me what I meant to say, asshole.

I meant what I said. Agree, disagree or go away.

You're free to buy more expensive, less convenient, diffuse energy.
The rest of us prefer to save money by using fossil fuels instead. Moron.

 

[AntonToo]

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save,

Saving is a lot harder when the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings...…..

Social Security IS savings that you can count on come retirement and it makes it VERY easy for people to put into these savings instead of spending it on something more immediate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

that would be true if the dems in congress had not merged SS funds with the general fund under LBJ. Now, those working pay for those who are retired. There is no "fund" that was made up from our SS (FICA) deductions.

As far as budget effects it doesn't matter who merged with what. What matters is how much was paid into the program and how much was paid out.

you just don't get it. SS was set up as a forced retirement fund for American workers. What we paid in was supposed to be put away for our retirement years. Currently there is zero in the SS fund and those working are paying those who are retired. The democrats under LBJ changed it and merged the SS fund with the general fund and then spent it. The classic Ponzi scheme.

Currently there is zero in the SS fund and those working are paying those who are retired.

Currently there is about $2.8 trillion in the SS Trust Fund.

the problem is that every penny of that is already committed to payments to current SS recipients, there is a net zero when you compare assets to obligations. actually it is a very large net negative.

the problem is that every penny of that is already committed to payments to current SS recipients

Of course it is.

there is a net zero when you compare assets to obligations.

Yes, the huge current pile of assets is not sufficient to cover long term obligations.

 

[DrLove]

Kudos to Moonbeam!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

that would be true if the dems in congress had not merged SS funds with the general fund under LBJ. Now, those working pay for those who are retired. There is no "fund" that was made up from our SS (FICA) deductions.

Now, those working pay for those who are retired.

It was always designed that way.
It wasn't designed to support people for 20+ years in retirement.

actually it was designed that way. the problem is that modern medicine is keeping people alive longer and the actuaries who created the SS fund did not properly foresee that. But that's only part of the problem, when LBJ did away with the SS fund the only way to keep the contract with retired people was to take more from working people. that will continue.

when LBJ did away with the SS fund

What do you imagine he did?
Why do you imagine it matters?

educate yourself, good article from Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/#20de502f4947

So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

First, there are real assets, $2.6 trillion in bonds.
When the debt ceiling is hit, the Treasury can't redeem any of the bonds,
because the Treasury, when the debt ceiling is hit, is out of cash and can't sell new bonds.

That being said, Obama was a twat for threatening seniors SS checks.

Nothing in there about LBJ's perfidy...…..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Currently there is zero in the SS fund and those working are paying those who are retired.

Currently there is about $2.8 trillion in the SS Trust Fund.

True, there is about $2.8 Trillion in the account of Social Security but there is no trust fund.

We have a massive unfunded liability.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

True, there is about $2.8 Trillion in the account of Social Security but there is no trust fund.

So where is the $2.8 trillion?

it consists of bonds issued to American taxpayers (and the Chinese government). it is a stack of debts, not a stack of money.

it is a stack of debts, not a stack of money.

It's a stack of assets. Assets that earn interest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the government issues a security to itself, how much has it increased the assets of the government?

By exactly the same amount it has increased the liabilities of the government.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. That's how much the Trust Fund is worth.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds.

The taxpayers, not the public. That's how government bonds work.
Whether they're sold to the public or sold to the trust funds.

Public, in this discussion means bonds held outside government trust funds.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

I've never ignored that. Not once, not ever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. That's how much the Trust Fund is worth.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

kinda like talking to a garden slug, isn't it?

Sorry, I don't know any slugs that understand accounting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save,

Saving is a lot harder when the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings...…..

Social Security IS savings that you can count on come retirement and it makes it VERY easy for people to put into these savings instead of spending it on something more immediate.

Social Security IS savings that you can count on come retirement

And your family can count on it too.....unless you die before you collect.

and it makes it VERY easy for people to put into these savings

And it makes it HARDER to save outside these savings.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. That's how much the Trust Fund is worth.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds.

The taxpayers, not the public. That's how government bonds work.
Whether they're sold to the public or sold to the trust funds.

Public, in this discussion means bonds held outside government trust funds.


View attachment 193947

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

I've never ignored that. Not once, not ever.

You ignore it every time you imply the bonds are worth something.