Is General Motors Worth Saving?
Posted By: sm on 2008-11-17
In Reply to:
Then came October. Sales plummeted an astounding 45% over the same period last year, a result of a slowing economy and a dearth of financing for would-be car buyers. Total U.S. car and light-truck sales this year could come in at 13.5 million, 2.6 million fewer than last year. "That's in nobody's business plan," says Kimberly Rodriguez, an automotive specialist with Grant Thornton. "The best planning in the world cannot survive that fluctuation." It's now clear that GM can't survive as an ongoing entity without massive federal assistance. The company is burning through more than $2 billion each month. It has $16 billion left. As if they were aboard a dirigible losing altitude, GM's bosses have been frantically throwing all manner of stuff overboard — retiree health-care benefits, people, assets, new car design — to conserve $5 billion. That will get it through the year. (See pictures of the 50 worst cars of all time.)
But 2009 is the year of reckoning for GM and the rest of the domestic auto industry, if not the economy as a whole. The GM crisis is raising once again the issue of how far the government should go in rescuing banks, insurance companies, mortgage holders, credit-card issuers and now carmakers. GM has no doubts about it. "Immediate federal funding is essential in order for the U.S. automotive industry to weather this downturn," GM president Fritz Henderson admitted to investors during a conference call in which GM announced a third-quarter loss of $2.5 billion.
No one is more aware of that need than Barack Obama, who carried Michigan by a huge margin. The President-elect is committed to helping the Detroit Three, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading a rescue party that plans to get a bailout bill in front of President Bush before Thanksgiving. So far, the President has offered only to speed through Congress an already approved $25 billion loan to help Detroit create new fuel-efficient models. But GM needs an additional $10 billion simply to pay its bills next year and $15 billion more to close plants, compensate redundant workers and dump some of its lesser-performing brands.
The issue boils down to a historic proposition: Is what's good for GM still good for the country?
"If GM were to go into a free-fall bankruptcy and didn't pay its trade debts, then the entire domestic auto industry shuts down," says Rodriguez. The system — the domestic auto plants and their interconnected group of suppliers — is far bigger than GM. It includes 54 North American manufacturing plants and at least 4,000 so-called Tier 1 suppliers — firms that feed parts and subassemblies directly to those plants. That includes mom-and-pop outfits but also a dozen or so large companies such as Lear, Johnson Controls and GM's former captive Delphi. Beyond those are thousands of the suppliers' suppliers.
Although the Detroit Three directly employed about 240,000 people last year, according to the industry-allied Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Mich., the multiplier effect is large, which is typical in manufacturing. Throw in the partsmakers and other suppliers, and you have an additional 974,000 jobs. Together, says CAR, these 1.2 million workers spend enough to keep 1.7 million more people employed. That gets you to 2.9 million jobs tied to the Detroit Three, and even if you discount the figures because of CAR's allegiance, it's a big number. Shut down Detroit, and the national unemployment rate heads toward 10% in a hurry. (See Pictures of the Week.)
Even if just one of the Detroit Three — and GM is the most likely, as Ford is in better shape and Chrysler is much smaller — spiraled into a free-fall bankruptcy, the systemic effects, at least initially, would be huge. The whole industry would not be able to build cars in the U.S., because of the lack of parts. "Unlike the airlines or steel, when you look at the automobile industry and the fact that the whole supplier base is connected — to Ford, Chrysler, Toyota — it will have a ripple effect on the entire industry," says Nicole Y. Lamb-Hale, a bankruptcy expert at the Detroit office of Foley & Lardner, a law firm that represents some GM suppliers.
A carefully planned, prepackaged bankruptcy would still be troublesome, she says. Throwing 479,000 GM retirees onto the rolls of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., for instance, could overwhelm it. And GM's agreement to fund the United Auto Workers' voluntary employee beneficiary association (VEBA) — thus getting a $50 billion unfunded liability off its books — might then be in jeopardy, as would the union's health benefits. The VEBA has already saved GM nearly $5 billion in the past quarter, and still greater benefits lie ahead.
A bailout won't spare GM or its workers pain. Assuming the government bridges GM to the future — or provides debtor-in-possession financing in a bankruptcy — there is still a ton of restructuring to do. The company operates 21 plants in North America and has three more that are scheduled to close. But Grant Thornton's Rodriguez says that still leaves five to go to match demand. "They still need to take structural steps: reduce suppliers, reduce the number of plants, reduce the cost structure and get rid of excessive debt." Most analysts say GM has to dump underperforming brands too.
Shutting down plants and cutting labor are costly — it's one of the ironies of the auto business. Deutsche Bank estimates that GM would have to spend $12 billion to chop labor costs and compensate dealers who lose their franchises. That would lower GM's North American operating costs from the current $31 billion to $25 billion annually, says Deutsche Bank. (See pictures of the global financial crisis.)
None of this can happen without the cooperation of the UAW, which is probably feeling better knowing that Obama is on his way to Washington. Although it hasn't shown its hand, the UAW may try to mitigate job losses in the U.S. by pushing GM and Ford to build fewer vehicles in Mexico, according to Sean McAlinden, chief economist at CAR. Obama might be sympathetic to that argument; he said during the campaign that NAFTA needed to be re-examined. The carrot for GM is that any new workers it hires in the U.S. will make $13 to $14 an hour and collect limited benefits rather than work for $29 an hour and get full benefits — the old UAW wage.
There's also a legitimate question as to who would do the restructuring. GM CEO Rick Wagoner has made the case that his crew is best placed to run the turnaround since it knows where the cost buttons are. But critics like Jim Schrager at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business say the wrong people are in charge: "I think you would only put money in GM if you had a complete change in the board and the current management. They are diligent. They worked very hard, but it just hasn't worked." In Schrager's view, GM is a strategic failure. It can manufacture high-quality cars, but it neither makes the right kind nor markets them effectively. He'd bust the company up into three independent firms: Chevy, Buick-Pontiac-GMC and Cadillac-Saab-Saturn.
If that's ultimately where Detroit ends up, is it worth the price to get there? Put another way, does GM deserve to be bailed out or left at the mercy of the market and almost certain death? "The University of Chicago training in me says the market should prevail," says Schrager. "But the Chrysler bailout was a success, and, gosh, I'd love to save it." That sentiment is not shared by everyone, and it goes to the heart of the central economic debate facing the country — between hard-nosed capitalists, who believe the market should decide, and public-policy types who view the economy as something far more organic than a balance sheet. But ultimately, whether GM is dead or alive, the taxpayers are on the hook for billions, for everything from lost tax revenues to higher unemployment costs to taking over GM's pension obligations. The decision that Washington has to make is whether we pay for GM's survival or for its funeral.
— With reporting by Joseph R. Szczesny / Detroit
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
We need saving...sm
His trip might have something to do with how McCain was bragging so much about how many trips he had made overseas and how he challenged Obama to go there, secretly hoping that he would look like a rookie. The media chimed right in and goaded Obama relentlessly, so he was just going with the flow when he went abroad. Looks like that one backfired on McCain and his media helpers. The messiah part….that just goes to show you how desperate people stateside and abroad are to be saved from Bush’s tyranny and are not in that much of a hurry to see his clone or his party inflict themselves onto the international scene again. They’re entitled.
That may be our only saving grace.....sm
Still, I fear the reprecussions that may result from that.
General Casey wants to cut and run.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500764_pf.html
Democrats Cite Report On Troop Cuts in Iraq
Pentagon Plan Like Theirs, Senators Say
By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 26, 2006; A01
Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. That resolution was defeated Thursday on a largely party-line vote in the Senate.
That means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress, Boxer said on CBS's Face the Nation. Now it turns out we're in sync with General Casey.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the worst-kept secrets in town -- that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.
It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration, Levin said on Fox News Sunday. It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
At issue was a report yesterday in the New York Times that Casey presented a private briefing at the Pentagon last week in which he projected that the number of U.S. combat brigades -- each with about 3,500 troops -- would decrease from 14 to five or six by the end of 2007. About 127,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, including many support troops beyond the combat brigades.
White House and Pentagon officials declined to confirm the projections, saying only that Casey met with President Bush on Friday to discuss how the military might proceed in Iraq after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forms a new government. Bush has often said the U.S. military will stand down as Iraqi forces become adequately trained to handle security.
One White House official said there was no formal plan presented or signed off on in Casey's meeting with Bush, only a discussion of various scenarios to guide their talks with the new Iraqi government.
We are entering a phase where discussions with the Iraqis will begin to practically define what 'stand up, stand down' will look like over the next two years, said this official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal conversations.
This official dismissed the suggestion by some Democrats that Casey's approach resembles their approach. A conditions-based strategy outlined by our generals on the ground is a far cry from politicians in Washington setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal, the official said.
A Pentagon official said his impression is that Bush and Casey had no lengthy discussion about troop reductions, and that any projections of specific numbers remain speculative. This source noted that Casey had said that he hoped U.S. force levels would be substantially reduced this year but has decided against such a move because of the continuing violence in Iraq.
I think there will be a modest decrease between now and the end of the year, the official added. But, he concluded, Nobody really knows.
U.S. commanders have long wanted to cut the size of their force in Iraq. But plans to do so have proven difficult to realize.
Before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, the Pentagon's war plans called for a swift reduction, from about 150,000 to 30,000 by the early autumn of that year. Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy defense secretary, told a congressional committee that the thinking behind this was that it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam [Hussein] Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine.
That plan was shelved when a fierce insurgency broke out in the summer of 2003. That fall, top commanders hoped to cut the U.S. presence to about 100,000 by the next summer. But a major escalation in violence in the spring of 2004, along with the collapse of the new Iraqi police force and parts of the new army, forced that plan to be discarded as well.
The result is that the United States has kept about 135,000 soldiers in Iraq for the past three years, with occasional fluctuations to as high as 160,000.
The widespread expectation inside the Army is that the U.S. presence will be cut to about 100,000 by the end of this year, with further reductions in 2007 to perhaps 50,000 to 75,000. That size could be maintained almost indefinitely by the Army and the Marine Corps. But whether those new plans will be realized will depend on events in Iraq, which have proven difficult to predict.
Casey's meeting with Bush followed an eventful several weeks in Iraq that included the death of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the completion of a new Iraqi government. It also followed particularly rancorous debates in the House and Senate, in which GOP lawmakers -- with the encouragement of the White House -- went after Democrats for being insufficiently supportive of the war effort and said decisions about issues such as troop deployments should remain with the president.
Coming so soon after the congressional debates, the report of Casey's briefing served to keep the debate going another day.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who co-sponsored an unsuccessful resolution setting a July 1, 2007, deadline for the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, issued a statement saying the Casey plan looks an awful lot like what the Republicans spent the last week attacking. Will the partisan attack dogs now turn their venom and disinformation campaign on General Casey?
But Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, played down the significance of the reported briefing. The department's drawn up plans at all times, but I think it would be wrong now to say that this is the plan that we're going to operate under, he said on Fox News Sunday.
Warner counseled patience. We have struggled and made tremendous sacrifice to give this nation its sovereignty, he said. They are now beginning to exercise this sovereignty with a young government. Give them a chance to move out. We will consult with them. I'm confident our government will not let them make mistakes that would reflect adversely on troop withdrawals.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voiced some skepticism that the administration can reach the conditions set for withdrawing troops.
Given current events in Baghdad, in particular, reported on every day quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific, he said on Face the Nation. So getting to the plans either of General Casey or Maliki are a broad sweep. But it is good news to know that there are contingency plans.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
In general, they are being persecuted.
People rarely speak of the majority you mentioned. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake since Iraq and Iran were basically enemies, working against each others interests. Now, thanks to US, the area has been split wide open with positive Iranian influence now present in Iraq, something Saddam Hussein had fought.
Obama in the general
There is a reason Rush Limbaugh has encouraged listeners to go and vote for Hillary. It's the same reason that major Republican players have said publicly they "pray night and day" that the candidate will be Hillary and not Obama. Hillary is too divisive. The Republicans are sure they can beat her. They feel much less confident about beating Obama. Look, staunch Democrats will vote for either candidate (Hillary or Obama) in the general election. Staunch Republicans will vote for McCain. Independents and moderates lean towards Obama. Odds are strongly in favor of a Democrat taking the White House this November (barring a fresh terrorist attack between now and then on homeland, in which case it goes hands down to McCain). The Republicans know the odds are not in their favor to win. That's why they "pray night and day" the Democratic candidate is Hillary. Then they have a chance.
Well, wonder what the general thinks about...
the 500 metric tons of yellowcake uranium that was just moved out of Iraq to Canada...Ms. Valerie Plame said during that big scandal that Hussein did not even have access to it...and now we have...uh...500 metric tons of it removed from Iraq. The Bush Administration and new Iraqi government kept it secret so the terrorists operating there would not target it until they could get it out of there. Got any idea how much 500 metric tons is? There's your reality check. Hussein was everything Clinton and his admin and Bush and his admin said he was. And he DID have WMD...he used it on his own people. Reality check indeed.
As to abortion...and Roe vs. Wade. Roe vs. Wade is illegal on its face. Activist judges struck down a law and made a new one, and they cannot do that by the Constitution. Only the COngress on state and federal level can enact law. FOr that reason alone it should be struck down.
It's all about choice? Then why can a mother drown a 2-day-old baby and that's murder? That's a choice as well. Why can't a person just shoot someone they find annoying and inconvenient? That's a choice.
Maybe it is not a priority to you, my friend. It is to me. So you vote for the man who will give you the right to choose, and I will vote for the man who at some point will stand up for the Constitution and not install activist judges who pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to uphold.
Sorry, didn't mean you.....just in general
:{
Atheists, in general,.....sm
are not ignorant of the Bible. If I ever said anything that led anyone to believe that, then my words were misinterpreted. What I do believe is that atheists generally approach the Bible with the intent of proving it wrong or contradictory which is just another "doctrine" by which they interpret the Bible. There was a man named Lee Strobel who tried to prove atheism through the Bible and became a Christian in the process. Most would call him a failure at what he set out to do, but I believe he was a winner in the end.
I was speaking of the left in general. SM
I came here at first to debate. It took two posts of acting people to be reasonable in debating (all can be found on this board) before I was labeled by gt. Since then, after multiple attempts at trying to debate, I have come to point out that while you may think you have taken the higher ground, you have indeed created a cesspool. So proud that the conservative board is "quiet and peaceful" when those who made it otherwise are posting here daily. Most of the posters on the convservative board afforded you the decency and honor of not posting here. But that favor was never returned. You (and I mean others, I have no idea who YOU are since everyone picks the name of the moment) bullied, brow-beat, denigrated and beat to a pulp any poster who dared to post on the Conservative board. And it wasn't just AG and Nan and MT. It was anyone. Well, you have your wish now. You are queens of everything Masters of your domain. Live in the land where NO ONE DARES TO DISAGREE with you. Happy now? As if.
Was that before or after General Colin Powell
nm
Birth certificates in general
No I did not watch the youtube link you posted. That is definitely not a credible source for such an important issue as this. The CERTIFIED copy on Factcheck (and never mind discussing the credibility of Fact check) should be enough, it shows the fold marks and clearly the certification and signature.
Many, many years ago, I worked in a small hospital and in addition to my MT-ing, part of my job was to obtain birth certificate applications from new moms. I know that my birth certificate has the AGE of my parents at my birth, not their birth dates. It also lists the state in which they were born. I do not know what Hawaii requirements for birth certificates are but when it is certified by the STATE I would assume it to be legitimate. The hospital issued "birth certificate" is not and never has been to my knowledge, a legal document.
With the furious campaining done by Hillary and McCain, do you not even stop to think that if they had not been absolutely certain that his birth certificate was legitimate they wouldn't have blown the lid off months and months ago, especially when it became obvious he was likely to win??? Saying otherwise is ridiculous. They had no problem trashing him with Ayers, etc. up until Day Last did they? Anything to try to knock him out of the race. So are you saying they are part of the conspiracy to "cover up" Obama's birth certificate? Come on.....legitimate MTs are more intelligent than that. Since I don't know you, I have no idea if you are an MT or not.
In general kids can be very cruel.
How many fat kids in school were popular? Not many, eh? This type of behavior stems from home. How many of us talk bad about other people in front of our children? I'm not just talking about homosexual bashing either. How many of us gossip about what so and so wore, etc.? How many of us bash others when we don't think our kids are paying attention?
How many times do Christians post on here and are bashed horribly for their beliefs and called names? How many Christians post on here bashing homosexuals and calling them sick freaks? This type of behavior comes in all shapes and sizes and comes from all sides....black vs white, gay vs straight, believer vs nonbeliever.
You cannot take on particular subject like homosexuality and us it soley to teach tolerance of people different than you. There are many other things that children are picked on for than just that one subject.
Oh look at 4 eyes over there or how about that dork with the braces, etc. Look at the kid not wearing designer clothes. Look at the freak with the emo makeup on.
See what I mean.....tolerance is such a broad thing to teach children that you can't just use homosexuality to teach tolerance and I think it is unfair to people who do not agree with homosexuality that their kids are being taught ACCEPTANCE and not just tolerance on that issue anyway.
Like I said before....I keep my God out of school.....keep your homosexuality out as well.
This article is about Alaskan oil production in general...
It is not specific to ANWR. It also leaves out a lot of facts - there are also native groups very much AGAINST the ANWR - it only mentions that some support. PLEASE provide nonpartisan and balanced information....PLEASE.
It is at the advice of the office of the attorney general...
of the state of Alaska. It has turned into a political hatchet job. Just a scant few months ago, Hollis French (running the "investigative" committee) said that the governor's office was cooperating and no subpoenas were necessary. Then, when she was picked as the VP candidate and Obama folks descended on Alaska...all of a sudden the "investigation" grew (and the pictures of Obama and Hollis French and the other key democrat on this committee yucking it up surfaced). It has come to light that the investigator they hired is a personal friend of the man he is investigating. No bias there, right? Now that the attorney general is involved, politics can be removed from this and it can be brought to a result, whatever that result is.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Flew right past that basic right, eh?
Now son of a Democratic congressman being investigated for hacking her personal email. Wondering how THAT will turn out.
He was advised to do so by the attorney general's office...
of the state of Alaska. Actually, the letter came from the attorney general to the committee, stating that no one would be responding to the subpoenas pending their investigation. No one "scoffed" at subpoenas.
Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania...
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 08/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court today, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg filed this suit for the best interests of the Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States
What's exceptionally annoying about politics in general ...
... is when someone comes out with an accusation (or a promise) and doesn't back it up with real information, facts, or plans.
Kind of like this post.
All general statements are false, so you are wrong... sm
There is one exception. Fox News fans are idiots.
They're just sick of big government in general!
@@
The moderate Islamists, that is the general population
condemn the actions of the fundamentalists and radicals, they do not agree with them, as those backfired on them.
These wars have nothing to do with religion, they are all political wars.
What's this business about a Chinese general threatening to use nukes against the US if necessary,sm
over the treaty with Taiwan? This was reported on Fox News this week.
Anyone been following this?
I made a general observation relative to the post.
nm
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.
Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.
"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.
He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.
This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.
Gore Slams Global Warming Critics
Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves
In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.
In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.
This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.
Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.
Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"
Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.
"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."
Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."
In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.
Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.
According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.
In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.
They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.
Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”
take it for what it's worth.....
What exactly do you think the ACLU is going to do?
For what its worth....
Ann Coulter is an entertainer. The left has them too...Michael Moore...Al Franken...and every time she says something outrageous the left runs backwards, gives her a lot of press, and she rakes in the dough. So she keeps saying things, the left keeps running backwards, and she makes more money. Just like Michael Moore, just like AL Franken. I used to hear things on Air America that make Ann Coulter look like little Orphan Annie. But I never heard the left condemn them either. Probably because I have seen some of the left post here things like *a waste of air* talking about another human being, and then in the same breath have another liberal post all the wonderful things liberals are supposed to be like *live and let live.* In other words...some snipes at Republicans who dare to post here near about as hateful as Ann Coulter.
All that being said...she is an entertainer. If the left would stop reacting like she was the devil incarnate every time she opened her mouth, she would go away, just Air America did. If conservatives had run screaming in the streets every time Air America said something controversial, they never would have folded. It is consumer driven, DW...and frankly, right now, the left is driving Ann Coulter more than the right is.
so how much am I worth?
s
Something worth
The "waterboarding" methods used by the Japanese differed significantly from those used by our intelligence operatives. The Japanese often pushed a tube into the prisoner's mouth so that the water would distend the stomach, causing real pain (which our version does not) and ultimately rupturing the stomach. They also had no physicians in attendance to see to the prisoner's safety, as we always did.
So, the fact that the two techniques happen to go by the same name does not make them moral equivalents either in their methods or the way they were conducted.
To paraphrase the dairy industry: Got facts?
I am addressing racism in general & some of the racial words that were used on this board earlier (s
I am not an Obama supporter specifically because of his pastor's racial biases against white people and because I disagree with Obama's stance on partial birth abortion. I am against racism in all forms. I am against Obama's terrorist friends, I am very unhappy about the church Obama attended for 20 years. I am voting for McCain ONLY to vote against Obama because I do not want him to be our president. Both candidates have a lot of bad history & I wish there was another option. However, I love people of all races. You are making this into a racial election. I want to leave racial terms like "towelhead" and "oreo" and "halfbreed" off of this board. Do you find those words necessary to make your points? If so, your vocabulary and mind are obviously very limited.
What isn't worth fighting for...
Probably a lot of things are worth fighting for...like liberty, to protect our country, to protect our values and ideals.
Unfortunately though it's been a long time since any wars were really fought for those things. They tell us that's what it's all about and we try to buy it, but if we happen to look at the facts closely, we just find out a lot of wealthy people get richer and they use the blood of other people's children to do it. They make up enemies and pour on the propaganda to rile us up so we'll think it's noble to go and die, and make them rich. That's how it seems to me anyway, and history certainly tends to back up that conclusion.
I think the last time we were fighting for worthwhile things was when we wore animal skins and carried wooden spears.
Not even worth a reply -
Truly, someone like this is not worth the energy.
There is no logical thought behind their posts. Calling me a racist is a silly immature infantile leftist ploy. We know that. I learned a long time ago to ignore posters such as this.
hmmmmmmm - not worth it
xx
Maybe you are not worth the time
nm
So maybe your net worth went up cuz you're
It's also not a viable option for most people.
Worth a Looksie
http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKI6Y1SaRsveVj2cAdYJtBQ1z3rkxJU1Z
Like my teacher used to say, if you have nothing worth
xx
Ya think they'll let her keep the $150,000 worth of
and accessories if the numbers don't take 'em over the top on Nov 4th?
and why was that worth reading?
I got nothing from that except that it is one more person who does not like Obama.
There was nothing in there that was not just one person's personal viewpoint - an obvious McCain supporter.
say something worth reading
You are BORING with your same rants day after day. Especially when they were already discussed on last nights news. I'm not wasting my time. Have fun, I guess?
Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
I am appalled, and would hope everyone on this board is too. These are the people who hate us and want to kill us, and the liberals/democrats/Obama, want to close down this base, bring them to America, and give them the same rights that we have.
Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
By Catherine Herridge
* E-Mail
* Print
* Share:
o Digg
o Facebook
o StumbleUpon
o Post to MySpace!
o
o
AP
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The soldiers who guard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed say he is a calculating man, a monster in a monk's habit and a leader of the prisoners locked away in Guantanamo Bay, where he's on trial for the murder of thousands.
With rare access and interviews, FOX News has learned new and sobering details about "The Sheikh," the man known simply as KSM.
"I was there when they read him his charges," said Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti, deputy commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. "Pretty sobering moment — charged with murder, terrorism, conspiracy. He looked at the sheet and said 'I did this, I did this, I did this. I did more than this. I'm guilty. I feel sorry for my defense attorney.'"
Zanetti told FOX News about life behind the wire at Guantanamo Bay's maximum security camps. Camp 7 is home to the most notorious, including Mohammed, the master planner of 9/11.
"He's very compliant, he is very studious and he is very calculating. He thinks things through very well, he plays things out. When you watch him in court, he has all of this choreographed," Zanetti said.
"He wants to die — he wants to be a martyr for the cause. He believes his story is being written right now, to be laid down side by side next to [the Prophet] Muhammad," Zanetti told FOX News.
Inside Guantanamo, maximum security cells provide an arrow pointing toward Mecca to orient the prisoners for prayer. Mohammed prays constantly, apparently a devout man, which Zanetti finds mystifying.
"The guy's got a long beard, studious glasses — he looked like a professor. ... You see him in a cell and he'll pray hours on end. What God are you praying to? What are you thinking, what is going on up there?" Zanetti wonders. "But if he could do it all again, he would."
Even in captivity, he still is leading members of AL Qaeda, who fall in lock-step with his plans.
"He knows what he's going to say, the message he wants to get out, what he's going to have his followers do. You've seen him in court — very quickly people fall in behind him."
Sketch artist Janet Hamlin's brush with Mohammed came at his first court appearance at Guantanamo in June. As a courtesy, the military allowed KSM to review the sketch. He quickly sent word to Hamlin that he hated it.
"He doesn't like it. He's saying he won't approve of it, it cannot be released until the nose is changed," she told FOX News. Mohammed made his demands clear: "'Tell her to find my FBI photo off the Internet, use that as reference. Fix it.'"
Mohammed's concern about his image is fundamental, but it can also breed rivalries among the detainees.
"You see this inside the camps; they get jealous of each other: 'You were in the news more than I was in the news.' It drives [Mohammed] crazy if he thinks no one cares. He thinks he's part of this much bigger picture," Zanetti said.
But the picture inside Guantanamo is often an ugly one. Some prisoners do all in their power to violate the guards.
"What they do is stuff that you and I would find despicable. They save up their bodily fluid, feces and so on, and then when the guard comes to deliver food, they get a feces cocktail thrown in their face."
It's something Zanetti says occurs almost daily, and weighs heavily on the guards, who are tasked with feeding and clothing the prisoners and tending to them when they are sick. Hospital staff get the worst exposure of all from the detainees, he said.
"You ensure that their life is as comfortable as possible while the detainees are trying to make the guards' life as miserable as possible."
Those daily doses of hatred are a stark reminder about some of the men locked up inside the camp, including Mohammed, who has claimed responsibility for decapitating Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.
"We have more than our fair share of Hannibal Lecters around here," Zanetti said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468125,00.html
Old news but worth remembering
Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.
The PNAC report also:
l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';
l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';
l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;
l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';
l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.
Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.
'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'
©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd
Many Say War Not Worth It; Cheney: 'So?'
Did you see Cheney on the ABC News tonight? You should have seen his smirky grin when he told her "so." He doesn't care what the country thinks about the war.
"On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success," Cheney told ABC News' Martha Raddatz.
When asked about how that jibes with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"
"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.
Yeah - that would be worth watching.
It is worth mentioning that the author
of this article is a a conservative Republican and contributing Editor of Red State, a conservative blog. Since we are always hearing after this or that article about that paper or station being liberal, I think it should be be noted that this is clearly republican and biased on that account.
Anyone who takes Fox tabloid seriously is not worth it and
Fox is a one sided propaganda hateful tabloid. It's quite clear to the intelligent people of this world. Think about it for a minute. Sheesh. They lie. lie lie lie and Hannity is the worst one.
Looks like it was a point worth missing.
you decide to let us in on what that elusive point might be.
Not true and not worth commenting on.
Please do some research before you post things that are not true. Just do a Google search and you will find the truth.
Another fishy story from someone who took the Republican bait hook, line, and sinker!
Dollars you have in your pocket won't be worth anything.....
As value decreases now, world is found on shaky ground, too, so my thought is that they are probably going to come up with a currency that will be used by all countries involved (from research I've done) and the dollars you have in your bank account, savings account (?) and pocket won't be worth a red minted cent!
Not even worth the time - see message
To respond to someone who knows nothing about how the stock market works.
Your just another liberal trying to cut down people that don't believe the way you do and somehow elevate yourself to the elite crowd. No thanks.
DH has made a career working in the stock market, researching, writing articles and providing companies with information on stocks, futures, etc. etc.
Loopey is all the glossy-eye O worshippers who wouldn't know the truth if it hit em in the face. They close their eyes and follow the voice of Farrahkan and others and don't question anything.
Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?.....sm
Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, “Freedomnomics”/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland
The stimulus bill had to be passed quickly. President Obama warned that not passing it would result in disaster. He warned that any delay was “inexcusable.” The 1,071 page stimulus bill had to be voted on quickly — so quickly this last week that the House and the Senate couldn’t even provide politicians the 48 hours they were supposed to have to read it.
The legislation was not put up on the Web until 11 PM on February 12 and the House passed it just 12 hours later. The Senate started voting on it only hours after that. Politician after politician admitted or complained that it was physically impossible to read the bill. As it was, the copies available on the Web for voters had all sorts of hand markings on it that sometimes made it difficult to figure out exactly what the bill proposed.
Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.
Despite all this pressure, Obama seems rather laid back after the bill was passed — he doesn’t plan the signing ceremony until Tuesday. As the New York Post noted, after passage, Obama “promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.” Possibly, Obama’s vacation was well deserved, but why couldn’t Congress have held debate and voted over the weekend or on Monday to allow extra time to read the bill?
It was not just the House and Senate rules that were set aside to get this vote through quickly. Promises were broken also. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised voters at least 5 days to study legislation. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site claimed that any earmark should have a written justification as well as “72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.” Of course, the whole spending bill is at odds with Obama’s promise to cut “net” government spending.
But the Democrats had help ramming this through. Three Republican Senators — Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins — could have voted for more time for debate. It was only with all three of their votes that the Democrats were able to reach the exact 60 votes they needed Friday to pass the bill. If any one of these three senators had asked for more time to read the bill and allow others to analyze it, they would have gotten it.
Not only did the final “stimulus” bill have major changes from what had been voted on previously by the House and Senate, but the amount of money involved is staggering. With 90 million tax filers who actually pay taxes, the $787 billion means the average taxpayer will pay over $8,700.
By itself, adding $8,700 to the average tax bill should get everyone’s attention. But that is on top of everything else that we are spending this year. With the stimulus bill, the $700 billion financial bailout (half spent by Bush and half by Obama), and the bailout for the auto companies, this year’s deficit is already at about$1.7 trillion — almost $19,000 per taxpayer. With more possible bailouts for the auto industry and others, that total might rise further.
But the stimulus won’t just raise government expenditures for the next two years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2010 to 2019 government expenditures for just 20 provisions will increase by almost $2.4 trillion. Assuming a 4.5 percent interest rate, that is the equivalent of about $1.9 trillion today. Adding that to the previous total brings the total to about $40,000 owed per taxpayer.
But that is not all the money that taxpayers are going to be on the hook for. Last week, the Obama administration promised another $2 trillion for the financial bailout. The decisions that we are making just this year are adding up to $5.6 trillion — $62,200 per taxpayer. Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.
Each one of these expenditures are getting pushed through quickly, but it is all adding up. People have to weigh this against benefits such as the $400 per person tax credit that those who make less than $75,000 per year are going to get under the stimulus.
And that is not the end of the costs that we will face this year. From even more health care reforms to environmental regulation and global warming to even more money for autos and other companies, the bills are going to get bigger. Some costs will temporarily be hidden through borrowing, but others will mean higher immediate taxes and higher product prices.
But the average taxpayer faces a simple question: are they getting $62,200 worth of benefits from all these government expenditures this year? If so, they are going to be poorer. My guess is that most of us are going to be a lot poorer.
John R. Lott, Jr. is the author of “Freedomnomics” and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
Funny! The only one with a positive net worth is the bum. :) nm
x
|
