Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[Flopper]

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!

I will, and as a conservative, I think younger people should have a choice whether to be in the program or not. I have no problem with being forced to save, but not forced to save with the government. It's just one of many tools to control the people.

The only reason SS is popular is because we were forced into it. It's our money. When you consider your FICA contribution (another fancy acronym for Social Security) and SS deductions, it's the largest tax we pay out of our check. So of course nobody (particularly older and middle-aged adults) want to see it go away.

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

Yes, and that's what our founders created a federal government for--to keep people out of poverty.

I think much of popularity of social is older folks knowing whatever happens to them, there will at least be some funds to support them in their old age. For younger people it's knowing that their parents are a lot less likely to be spending their old age sleeping in their living room.

 

[AntonToo]

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

All 22 million? Most?

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.

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...…..

American's don't save enough anyway, so its' best for society when they have to hold your hand.

Speak for yourself, I'd do much better with my own 12.4%.

So therefore everyone would?

NOPE, many would do worse and one way or another it would probably become on you to bail at least some of them.

So therefore everyone would?

Nope. Many people are quite clueless.

Right, so that's why we need this.

 

[Flopper]

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

The purpose of these subsidies are to increase the volume of sales such that the private sector will sink more money into RD, developing lower cost more efficient panels so at some point the product becomes financially viable without subsidies. It certainly seems to be happening with solar panels. We are seeing dramatic drops in price and increased efficiency. In some places solar panels are financial viable right now but in others it will be a number of years due to the fact electricity rates are very low.

What I see as a problem is reducing subsidies since viability is dependent on local power rates.

Would solar become viable without subsidies? Maybe, maybe not. It sure didn't happen with light bulbs. For over 50 years, lighting manufactures made no improvements in the life of bulbs or their efficiency until government mandated improvements and provided subsidies.

 

[bripat9643]

$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.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth anything.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth nothing.

I understand fraud, and that's what the so-called "Trust Fund" is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth anything.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth nothing.

I understand fraud, and that's what the so-called "Trust Fund" is.

How is it fraud?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I own some Treasury Bonds. Do you feel they're worth something?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond. Go to your computer and design a interest bearing bond for $1,000,000. Now print it. How much has your net worth increased?

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth anything.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth nothing.

I understand fraud, and that's what the so-called "Trust Fund" is.

How is it fraud?

It's fraud because it was designed to convince fools like you into believing that the government has funds to pay off your SS benefits. It doesn't.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Social Security....at the time.....was probably one of the better options available to the government trying to deal with a society in transition.

The sad thing is that it really never did much for the elderly who had made super low incomes (relative to what it paid to people who made more money). In that sense it was something of retirement program.

But, while I don't like it, the fact is that the elderly were being marginalized as the country was going through the I.R. and G.D. The unemployment rate was over 50%. But it should not have been a permanent thing.

Politicians have so screwed it up and put so many people on the rolls that were not supposed to be there...that they are going to screw it up for the people who need it the most.

I am not a fan either and wish I had that money back too.

But, I can see why it was done at the time.

The one bad thing (I shouldn't say just one) about social programs is once they're in place, it's impossible to get rid of them. I call this my raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can. So you go in the house and get that nice meaty hambone you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal dines in delight. Now give it a few seconds and try to take that hambone back and see what happens.

This is exactly how government handouts work. Once you give it to people, they believe it rightfully belongs to them no matter who provided it. And politicians from both sides are afraid of getting their hand chewed off in an attempt to take it away.

What started off as benevolence turned into over 80 federal welfare programs in less than a century, and the Democrats only want to see more.

Now that we see the problems these programs are causing, it's certainly a good enough reason to never support a candidate or party that wants more of them.

Contrary to popular opinion, social security benefits do not contain any government handouts. All of the funds in the Social Security Trust fund come from three sources, contributions from employees, employers, and interest earned on treasury bills. The fund balance as on 12/31/2017 was 2.8 trillion dollars. In 2017 the fund grew by 44.1 million. The fund has increased in value 49 of the last 60 years. The 11 years the fund decreased in value was due to contributions and interest earned falling below benefits paid. These were all during periods of economic slowdown. The last time this occurred was 1981.

During these times the treasury redeemed the treasury bills owned by the fund sufficient to cover the shortfall. These transfers were assets of the fund and at no time did the treasury transfer taxpayers funds to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Trust Fund Data

There are no funds in the Social Security Trust Fund. There's only a file drawer full of worthless I.O.U.s

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$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.

I own some Treasury Bonds. Do you feel they're worth something?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond. Go to your computer and design a interest bearing bond for $1,000,000. Now print it. How much has your net worth increased?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond

Of course I didn't issue it. Is it worth something, sitting there in my Ameritrade account?

 

[bripat9643]

$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.

says slug number one. only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability, an account payable in high school bookkeeping.

only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability,

I agree. Who thinks the bonds in the Trust Funds are an asset to the US Treasury?
They're an asset for the trust fund, they're a liability to the US Treasury.

They are an obligation to the Treasury. In theory they are an asset to Social Security. The problem is that both agencies are just subdivisions of the government. They are worthless to the government. The only way they can be paid is by taking the money out of the taxpayer's pocket.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I own some Treasury Bonds. Do you feel they're worth something?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond. Go to your computer and design a interest bearing bond for $1,000,000. Now print it. How much has your net worth increased?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond

Of course I didn't issue it. Is it worth something, sitting there in my Ameritrade account?

If you want a comparable situtation, print up a bunch of bonds payable by Toddsterpatriot and then deposit them in your Ameritrade account. How much has your net worth increased?

 

[Flopper]

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...…..

There are costs that government absorbs in distributing benefits, processing benefit claims, ect. that are not charged to fund.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth anything.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth nothing.

I understand fraud, and that's what the so-called "Trust Fund" is.

How is it fraud?

It's fraud because it was designed to convince fools like you into believing that the government has funds to pay off your SS benefits. It doesn't.

You think the government won't have the funds? Why not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I own some Treasury Bonds. Do you feel they're worth something?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond. Go to your computer and design a interest bearing bond for $1,000,000. Now print it. How much has your net worth increased?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond

Of course I didn't issue it. Is it worth something, sitting there in my Ameritrade account?

If you want a comparable situtation, print up a bunch of bonds payable by Toddsterpatriot and then deposit them in your Ameritrade account. How much has your net worth increased?

Forget a comparable situation, I have an actual one.
Are the Treasuries in my Ameritrade account worth something?
Why or why not?

 

[bripat9643]

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

I own some Treasury Bonds. Do you feel they're worth something?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond. Go to your computer and design a interest bearing bond for $1,000,000. Now print it. How much has your net worth increased?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond

Of course I didn't issue it. Is it worth something, sitting there in my Ameritrade account?

If you want a comparable situtation, print up a bunch of bonds payable by Toddsterpatriot and then deposit them in your Ameritrade account. How much has your net worth increased?

Forget a comparable situation, I have an actual one.
Are the Treasuries in my Ameritrade account worth something?
Why or why not?

Stop trying to convince me that you're stupid. I'm already convinced.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

says slug number one. only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability, an account payable in high school bookkeeping.

only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability,

I agree. Who thinks the bonds in the Trust Funds are an asset to the US Treasury?
They're an asset for the trust fund, they're a liability to the US Treasury.

They are an obligation to the Treasury. In theory they are an asset to Social Security. The problem is that both agencies are just subdivisions of the government. They are worthless to the government. The only way they can be paid is by taking the money out of the taxpayer's pocket.

They are an obligation to the Treasury. In theory they are an asset to Social Security.

Finally! Glad I could help.

The only way they can be paid is by taking the money out of the taxpayer's pocket

Just like the Treasury I hold at Ameritrade!! Great.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I own some Treasury Bonds. Do you feel they're worth something?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond. Go to your computer and design a interest bearing bond for $1,000,000. Now print it. How much has your net worth increased?

That situation is not comparable because you are not the one who issued the treasury bond

Of course I didn't issue it. Is it worth something, sitting there in my Ameritrade account?

If you want a comparable situtation, print up a bunch of bonds payable by Toddsterpatriot and then deposit them in your Ameritrade account. How much has your net worth increased?

Forget a comparable situation, I have an actual one.
Are the Treasuries in my Ameritrade account worth something?
Why or why not?

Stop trying to convince me that you're stupid. I'm already convinced.

Don't worry about it.
Even though you don't understand accounting, you're still a good guy.

 

[Flopper]

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.

says slug number one. only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability, an account payable in high school bookkeeping.

only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability,

I agree. Who thinks the bonds in the Trust Funds are an asset to the US Treasury?
They're an asset for the trust fund, they're a liability to the US Treasury.

They are an obligation to the Treasury. In theory they are an asset to Social Security. The problem is that both agencies are just subdivisions of the government. They are worthless to the government. The only way they can be paid is by taking the money out of the taxpayer's pocket.

The trust fund is a separate entity by law. It is "off budget" and is managed separately from the government finances.

The "Financial Statements of the United States Government" do not reflect Social Security Funds as assets because they are not government property but they certain include special issue treasury bills held by the trust fund as liabilities because they are part of government debt exactly as other treasury bills are treated.

 

[francoHFW]

Which is why we need Democrats running the government and policy again. Unions have been broken and the greatest generation died so there is no one else to protect the non rich.

Then why didn't DumBama and the rest of the crooks bring back unions when they had the chance? Go ahead, bring back unions. It will only have the same result it did as last time, and that is businesses moving out of the country or otherwise investing in automation.

That's happening regardless. If you're so interested in saving American jobs then why don't you take a pay cut?

Yes it is happening, but will happen even faster than it is now if that's what you want. How would me taking a pay cut save an American job? If you want to save American jobs, support Republicans and their quest to eliminate illegals and build a wall so they stop coming here and taking American jobs.

Yes, Americans are lining up for the opportunity to be a part of the exciting meat processing industry. Second only in demand to the tomato harvesting arts.

No they are not. But in order to get workers, the pay scale will have to naturally increase and then you'll see Americans taking those jobs.

You've been hoodwinked to think that the only jobs foreigners take are agriculture jobs. Better think again before they come to where you work and take your job next.

So stop duping around and vote democratic 4 comprehensive immigration reform and SS ID card that can't be faked and a $15 minimum wage Etc. The GOP Loves cheap easily bullied workers and will keep this scam going forever. The wall is a bad joke, super duper.

 

[francoHFW]

Then why didn't DumBama and the rest of the crooks bring back unions when they had the chance? Go ahead, bring back unions. It will only have the same result it did as last time, and that is businesses moving out of the country or otherwise investing in automation.

That's happening regardless. If you're so interested in saving American jobs then why don't you take a pay cut?

Yes it is happening, but will happen even faster than it is now if that's what you want. How would me taking a pay cut save an American job? If you want to save American jobs, support Republicans and their quest to eliminate illegals and build a wall so they stop coming here and taking American jobs.

Yes, Americans are lining up for the opportunity to be a part of the exciting meat processing industry. Second only in demand to the tomato harvesting arts.

No they are not. But in order to get workers, the pay scale will have to naturally increase and then you'll see Americans taking those jobs.

You've been hoodwinked to think that the only jobs foreigners take are agriculture jobs. Better think again before they come to where you work and take your job next.

So stop duping around and vote democratic 4 comprehensive immigration reform and SS ID card that can't be faked and a $15 minimum wage Etc. The GOP Loves cheap easily bullied workers and will keep this scam going forever. The wall is a bad joke, super duper.

Put Single Payer Healthcare for all on the card 2 and we might actually have a healthy happy economy and population 4 for a change...