protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 57,241
- 18,389
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #1,361
Well, it depends which "vulnerability" of our power grid you are referring to.
If you're referring to China having code on our grid which would allow them to shut down the grid at any time they want, that is a national security issue. And since defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government, then returning to Constitutional government would clearly solve this issue. Lowering taxes because we don't have to pay for unconstitutional shit will put more people back to work - giving the federal government a larger base to draw taxes from. At the same time, we can divert a portion of those unconstitutional funds (the parts not eliminated by lowering taxes) to defense.
Now, if you're referring to your stuff about San Jose, returning to Constitutional government will resolve that by placing responsibility back where it belongs - to the local municipalities and to the people. For example - I'm not the least bit concerned about the power grid getting knocked out. You know why? Because I have a full-home generator. Everything in my home - from dire necessities (such as heating) to frivolous luxuries (such as A/C) run flawlessly when power is out. My employer? Nearly every facility they have also has a backup generator.
Furthermore, as outlined above, eliminating the crushing taxes for unconstitutional socialism will put people back to work and thus create a larger base from which to draw taxes from for the local municipalities. This means more funds for security, redundancy, etc. Next?
You're not ready for next. There is still your responses I shall now address.
1. Yes China has infiltrated our grid, and so has Russia. These need to be dealt with as a severe national security issue. It could also be noted though that the likelihood of our grid being wrecked by these countries, is lessened by both military and economic factors. There is still the nuclear war mutual deterrent. In the case of China especially, while its common to hear how dominant they are economically, they are dependent upon America for our massive MARKET. Pat Buchanan once said "If we had a trade war with China, we'd eat their lunch." In general though, I'd agree with you on this point..
2. There a number of ways of looking at the issue of lowering taxes. One is the scenario you present, which I (and most Americans) reject as Reaganist, trickle-down poppycock. You're entitled to that opinion, in any case.
Another, is one which I must have posted 100 times in this forum. That is by RAISING taxes (greatly) upon the richest individuals, we can put people back to work, paying them from these added funds. They can be hired to work directly on our most dangerous infrastructure problems (the electric grid, Wolf Creek Dam, California delta levees) keeping these secure. Many more can be hired as ICE agents, CBP officers, building the Mexican border double fence, shoring up airport and port security, and creating more immigration courts and jails. This could facilitate a mass deportation program similar to Eisenhower's 1954 Operation Wetback, which would save hundreds of billions in welfare payouts to illegal alien families, and open up the working illegals' jobs to Americans, who would then pay more tax $ (due to their higher wages) and save the US economy tens of Billions$$ per year in lost remittances, as the replacement Americans will not wire $40 Billion/yr out of the country, but instead will go out and spend in their US stores (AKA the economy)
3. While you and your employer may have your immediate electrical devices covered, there are outer social ramifications that would hit all of us in the event of a large power grid breakdown. Water and fuel, which depend on electric pumps, would stop flowing in most cities within hours, modern communications would end, and mechanized transport would stall. Your TV might operate, but there might not be anything transmitting to it. Traffic lights would konk out, as would street lamppost lights, and driving would be chaos and dangerous. Hospital machinery, dependent on power, could stop, killing many patients. Manufacture of thousands of products (including food) could halt. What food does get made, could be halted by the stoppage of transportation. Computers everywhere could shut down, causing a massive cascading collapse of secondary users. Backup generators for hospitals, the military, and other critical facilities would be vulnerable if they depended on diesel or natural gas, which also rely on pipelines for resupply.
Then there's the question of How will you transport yourself if a) your vehicle doesn’t run because the computers are fried or b) it runs but you can’t get gas because the pumps at the station run on electricity? How will you get food if the grocery stores are closed ? (when they can't get any food shipped in)
First of all, since we are the world's premier superpower and the world's premier nuclear superpower, who in the hell is going to detonate 4,000 EMP's across America? There isn't a nation-state in the world that would even think about executing something like that. They would be nuked out of existence before lunch time.
That's an easy question. Millions of Islamist jihadist lunatics that's who. To whom mutual deterrence doesn't exist because those loons don't care about dying. In fact they kind of like the idea. Get's them quicker to the 72 virgins in their afterlife paradise. They still haven't heard that the Koran- Hadith guy got it wrong. Actually, it was ONE virgin, 72 years old.
Another answer is that there need not be ANYONE detonating anything. An EMP can result from a solar flare, entirely by nature.
So what does that leave? Terrorist organizations without a nation to nuke. Not even Al Qaeda has the finances, resources, and most importantly - people to detonate 4,000 EMP's coast-to-coast. Basically, they would be able detonate one EMP in one city. Hardly enough to to make America blink much less "knock us back into the 19th century". Would have no more effect on our nation than 9/11. So your literally attempting to create the most absurd and bizarre scenario to justify your unconstitutional position. Sorry, you have to do better than that.
Doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. Sure I could do the work of scrounging up the numbers to show what I'm saying, but suffice it to say that if you clicked the links I provided, you'd know that dozens (if not hundreds) of members of Congress and scientists are scrambling right now to put preventive measures together in a hurry. They're taking it very seriously, and I suspect they know more than you do. No offense, but I'll go with their assessment, and pass on yours.
Secondly, regarding your second point, like most unhinged and uninformed liberals, you cite local issues (damns, levees, security for both, etc.) as justification for raising taxes at the federal level. Sorry, doesn't work. Again, you have to do better than that.
Sorry. It works. And I'm not a liberal. And next to my REAL Conservatism, you might come out looking like a cross between Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton.
If you want to raise taxes at the local level, I support you 100%. Go for it junior! Just know that your city will end up like Detroit - a bankrupt, 3rd world shit-hole. But the fact remains, federal taxes desperately need to be cut deeply.
To say that "federal taxes desperately need to be cut" , is like saying a dying cancer victim needs to be slapped around. Have you been out in the sun too long, or worse yet, listening to some old Ronald Reagan audio tapes ? Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)
The fact is, "trickle down" is just the libtard name for capitalism. It is a proven, flawless system. Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history and created an economic tidal wave which the nation rode for about 30 years (until Clinton's ignorant socialist policies finally collapsed the tidal wave).
Man, have they ever got you programmed. Didn't I educate you on this previoulsy with BLS and BEA stats ? Sure I did in Post # 1208. You're one of thise guys who doesn't pay attention, huh ? Have to be told multiple times. OK> Here we go again >>
Reagan/Bush and their 28-31% tax on the rich created an economic recession in 1991 (GDP growth > MINUS 3.5%, only to be rescued by Clinton's tax increase, and resulting economic boom years during the 90s. A quick look at the GDP and job growths tell the story clearly. Click the link and set the drop down menu to 1990 and 1995.
United States Economy Expands 3.2% in Q4 | Actual Data | Forecasts
Poor people don't create jobs. Ever. Wealthy people do. The more you tax and punish them, the less they will have to invest in the economy. Detroit (bankrupt) proved that you're wrong and I am right. California ($70 billion in debt) proved that you're wrong and I am right. Cuba (60 years of perpetual poverty) proved that you're wrong and I am right.
Poor people absolutely DO create jobs (AMERICAN poor that is) if you give them more money by raising the minimum wage or raising taxes and hiring them to govt jobs. They, having so few consumer goods, are society's most energetic spenders. Getting additional money they rush to the stores (AKA the economy) and spend their money, boosting the economy. This is percolate up economics.
Rich people don't invest in the economy. During the height of the recent recession they had plenty of money. And what did they do with it ? Nothing. Time and time again, it's been shown that tax cuts on the rich = economy tank. The Bush tax cuts directed toward corporate investment, notably the bonus depreciation provisions, and found that their aggregate impact on investment was just 1 to 2 percent, far too small to offset the double-digit declines of the early 2000s. Rich people also don't spend their money much. They already have the stuff being sold in the stores, and when they do spend their money, they spend a very large % of it OUTSIDE THE USA, creating gains for the countries (mostly Europe and the Caribbean) where they spend, and lost $$ from the US economy (similar to immigrants' remittances$$$.
How did they affect corporate investment?
Last edited:
