Government grants for solar panels
HeyBub
"[WASHINGTON, D.C.] Dozens of District residents who installed solar panels
on their homes under a government grant program promoting renewable energy
have been told they will not be reimbursed thousands of dollars as promised
because the funds were diverted to help close a citywide budget gap. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022702910.html
SteveB
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:-9ednZCw8YBoz_HQ...@earthlink.com...
Did you expect anything else?
Steve
Stormin Mormon
force. And then gives it to someone else to build solar
panels. That's un-American.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:-9ednZCw8YBoz_HQ...@earthlink.com...
Han
$1bs$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> So, the government takes MY money from me, by threat of
> force. And then gives it to someone else to build solar
> panels. That's un-American.
>
It's all for the children. You should appreciate that!
<grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
dgk
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So, the government takes MY money from me, by threat of
>force. And then gives it to someone else to build solar
>panels. That's un-American.
It is exactly American. We vote for the people who make those laws. If
you don't like them, vote for someone else. Sometimes the rights of
society as a whole trump the rights of individuals. I think Jesus
would agree, no?
HeyBub
> So, the government takes MY money from me, by threat of
> force. And then gives it to someone else to build solar
> panels. That's un-American.
The way I read the article is that the government takes money from others,
promises to reimburse you for a perceived social good, then reneges on the
promise so they can give the money to those that have an immediate need.
Presumably, the discussion on resource allocation involved this conversation
stopper: "Obviously those that can afford $12,000 for solar collectors don't
need the money..."
But it's not all bad. There's the emotional high experienced by those who
did what they could to save the environment. That's gotta mitigate the
downside of a twelve-grand hit.
Kurt Ullman
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Stormin Mormon wrote:
> > So, the government takes MY money from me, by threat of
> > force. And then gives it to someone else to build solar
> > panels. That's un-American.
>
> The way I read the article is that the government takes money from others,
> promises to reimburse you for a perceived social good, then reneges on the
> promise so they can give the money to those that have an immediate need.
>
At the last clause you misspelled "gave a bigger campaign
contribution." Easy mistake to make.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
Stormin Mormon
please forgive me! Think of the children!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Han" <nob...@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns9E9B549ED...@207.246.207.158...
Stormin Mormon
The parties select the candidates; there is no real choice.
In the 1992, was it, campaign. Our choice was Socialist C,
or Fascist B. What choice?
The "society trumps" argument is what brings us socialism
and fascism. Please rethink your argument. It's un-American.
No, I don't think Jesus would agree.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"dgk" <d...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:nmtpm6h8dvqvs0eia...@4ax.com...
Red Green
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:16:19 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So, the government takes MY money from me, by threat of
>>force. And then gives it to someone else to build solar
>>panels. That's un-American.
>
> It is exactly American. We vote for the people who make those laws. If
> you don't like them, vote for someone else.
Who will do the same thing. Has it ever been different? No. Will it ever be
different? No. Politicians are politicians for per$onal gain. Cut through
all the blah, yadda and yak and that's always the end result. Period.
Sometimes the rights of
> society as a whole trump the rights of individuals. I think Jesus
> would agree, no?
Jesus was voted in? Hmmm, new one on me. I'm not religious savy though.
JIMMIE
Nothing unusual there, lots of states who have promised rebates dont
have the money to pay. I wonder how many people would not have them
put in if they knew their promised rebates weren't worth the paper
they were written on. You would think that if a state owed one of its
citizens money that the easiest way to pay it off would be to let them
deduct it from their income tax. Ha Ha, that doesn't happen either.
Jimmie
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:-9ednZCw8YBoz_HQ...@earthlink.com...
> "[WASHINGTON, D.C.] Dozens of District residents who installed solar
> panels on their homes under a government grant program promoting renewable
> energy have been told they will not be reimbursed thousands of dollars as
> promised because the funds were diverted to help close a citywide budget
> gap. "
You'll find out sooner or later so I might as well tell you, this is all
part of a payoff from the Dems to the solar panel installers union. It's
similar to that deal the air traffic controllers did with the Dems to vote
for Carter after Reagan fired them.
Don Klipstein
>
>"HeyBub" wrote in news:-9ednZCw8YBoz_HQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "[WASHINGTON, D.C.] Dozens of District residents who installed solar
>> panels on their homes under a government grant program promoting renewable
>> energy have been told they will not be reimbursed thousands of dollars as
>> promised because the funds were diverted to help close a citywide budget
>> gap. "
>
>You'll find out sooner or later so I might as well tell you, this is all
>part of a payoff from the Dems to the solar panel installers union. It's
>similar to that deal the air traffic controllers did with the Dems to vote
>for Carter after Reagan fired them.
Can anyone cite Carter running for high elected office after Reagan
reached the Oval Office?
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Oren
Klipstein) wrote:
>>
>>You'll find out sooner or later so I might as well tell you, this is all
>>part of a payoff from the Dems to the solar panel installers union. It's
>>similar to that deal the air traffic controllers did with the Dems to vote
>>for Carter after Reagan fired them.
>
> Can anyone cite Carter running for high elected office after Reagan
>reached the Oval Office?
No.
HeyBub
> Actually, I must disagree. On all three of your points.
>
> The parties select the candidates; there is no real choice.
> In the 1992, was it, campaign. Our choice was Socialist C,
> or Fascist B. What choice?
>
That's you.
One can be active in the party of choice. As such, you have a say in who the
candidate will be, his platform, policies, and promises.
You can contribute, time or treasure to the person of choice long before the
primary.
Oren
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The parties select the candidates; there is no real choice.
In Nevada I can vote "None of the Above".
Enacted after Watergate, people out here can't trust politicians, you
see!
DGDevin
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnimqn3...@manx.misty.com...
>>You'll find out sooner or later so I might as well tell you, this is all
>>part of a payoff from the Dems to the solar panel installers union. It's
>>similar to that deal the air traffic controllers did with the Dems to vote
>>for Carter after Reagan fired them.
> Can anyone cite Carter running for high elected office after Reagan
> reached the Oval Office?
Of course not, this was in reference to a little slip Heybub made in another
thread where he suggested the fired air traffic controllers later voted for
Carter (he's at that age) who got some of them their jobs back. In reality
some were rehired in Reagan's second term, and it was Clinton who repealed a
lifetime ban on federal employment which Reagan had slapped on the fired
strikers.
Higgs Boson
<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So, the government takes MY money from me, by threat of
> force. And then gives it to someone else to build solar
> panels. That's un-American.
>
Hey, man, that's the tip of the iceberg! The government takes money
from you "by threat of force" and uses it to build fast,safe highways;
supply clean, safe drinking water; provide safety lighting for
citiesorganize police to keep your home and family safe; compel food
processors and packers to list ingredients on packages to ensure safe
food supply for you and your family; create old age guarantees against
sickness and poverty -- man, we could go on for pages, listing what
that bad ole' government does -- stuff the rest of us take for granted
as part of civilized society.
Bet you wish you could unilaterally prevent the government from taking
YOUR money from you "by threat of force". Then you could handle all
of the above and much, much more, all by your widdle self! Hint: Lay
in plenty of ammo.
HB
The Daring Dufas
Government takes money from you "by threat of force"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ
build fast,safe highways; supply clean, safe drinking water; provide
safety lighting for cities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4
organize police to keep your home and family safe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
compel food processors and packers to list ingredients on packages to
ensure safe food supply for you and your family
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/33515
create old age guarantees against sickness and poverty
http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks
I love my Liberal friends, even though they live in LaLa land, have no
clue and are blind as to what those they worship are really all about.
TDD
Higgs Boson
wrote:
Who's "worshipping"? You can cite all the hairy breathless media
examples you please; I'm way ahead of you. Laws are on the books;
increasingly so as voters wake up to what's being done in their name.
(Also as more & more women become active in public life, and I'm not
talking about whores like Palin and the crazed born-agains in Congress
and local entities.)
Only an informed and aggressive citizenry -- coupled with the few
media that still do priceless investigative reporting -- will keep the
responsible entities performing according to the law(s).
We've come a LONG way, baby, since the days of unrestricted pollution
and exploitation. Only we still need to sleep with our eyes open,
keep ourselves informed, get after the lawbreakers, and most of all,
keep the heat on our bought-and-sold government. Or are you OK with
Chinese baby food that kills babies?
Note also that the current crop of corporate whores in Congress are
intent on rolling back what protections we HAVE gained over the last
decades. Have you contacted your wh..sorry, Representative or
Senator, to let them know you don't wantto lose environmental
protection; WIC (women and children nutrition for poor people); public
television (soggy though they are, they DO offer some alternative
reporting); protection against predatory foreclosures; early childhood
education, etc.etc. anything that contributes to a healthy and well-
educated citizen rather than a mindless consumerist robot. Nobody is
going to do it for you.
Santayana: Those who do not study history are doomed to relive it.
HB
HeyBub
"Higgs Boson" <hypa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fec69bf-c01a-4a66...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
HeyBub
>
> Note also that the current crop of corporate whores in Congress are
> intent on rolling back what protections we HAVE gained over the last
> decades. Have you contacted your wh..sorry, Representative or
> Senator, to let them know you don't wantto lose environmental
> protection; WIC (women and children nutrition for poor people); public
> television (soggy though they are, they DO offer some alternative
> reporting); protection against predatory foreclosures; early childhood
> education, etc.etc. anything that contributes to a healthy and well-
> educated citizen rather than a mindless consumerist robot. Nobody is
> going to do it for you.
>
You raise a good point. There is, however, a cost-effective argument. As to
the specific programs you mention:
* WIC - Cancel it in total. If a mother cannot feed her child, perhaps a
foster parent can.
* Public Television - Cancel. Let them compete in the marketplace or rely on
donations.
* Predatory foreclosures - Huh? Either people can make their house payment
or they can't. It's as simple as that.
* Early Childhood Education - Cancel. ALL empirical evidence proves that
Head Start et al have absolutely no effect on later learning.
The only good that these things do is make a certain segment of society feel
good at the expense of the majority.
Kurt Ullman
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> * Public Television - Cancel. Let them compete in the marketplace or rely on
> donations.
>
There was a rather interesting study about 15 years. It pointed out
that PBS had more than one station in many areas and that it had more
affiliates than any non-governmental network. They thought that if you
sold off the extra channels you could set up a trust fund that would
replace the Fed contribution.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> So, the government takes MY money from me, by threat of
>> force. And then gives it to someone else to build solar
>> panels. That's un-American.
>
>The way I read the article is that the government takes money from others,
>promises to reimburse you for a perceived social good, then reneges on the
>promise so they can give the money to those that have an immediate need.
If you had the money to blow on solar panels, you didn't need it in the first
place. The teachers union had a more immediate need.
>Presumably, the discussion on resource allocation involved this conversation
>stopper: "Obviously those that can afford $12,000 for solar collectors don't
>need the money..."
Right, but the NEA does.
>But it's not all bad. There's the emotional high experienced by those who
>did what they could to save the environment. That's gotta mitigate the
>downside of a twelve-grand hit.
Right, and buy a Volt, while you're on the high.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:37:20 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
><cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The parties select the candidates; there is no real choice.
>
>In Nevada I can vote "None of the Above".
Wouldn't want the guy who you threw your vote away on to actually WIN, now
would you?
>Enacted after Watergate, people out here can't trust politicians, you
>see!
Why not just take off that day?
The Daring Dufas
> talking about whores like Palin and the crazed born-agains in Congress
> and local entities.)
>
> Only an informed and aggressive citizenry -- coupled with the few
> media that still do priceless investigative reporting -- will keep the
> responsible entities performing according to the law(s).
>
> We've come a LONG way, baby, since the days of unrestricted pollution
> and exploitation. Only we still need to sleep with our eyes open,
> keep ourselves informed, get after the lawbreakers, and most of all,
> keep the heat on our bought-and-sold government. Or are you OK with
> Chinese baby food that kills babies?
>
> Note also that the current crop of corporate whores in Congress are
> intent on rolling back what protections we HAVE gained over the last
> decades. Have you contacted your wh..sorry, Representative or
> Senator, to let them know you don't wantto lose environmental
> protection; WIC (women and children nutrition for poor people); public
> television (soggy though they are, they DO offer some alternative
> reporting); protection against predatory foreclosures; early childhood
> education, etc.etc. anything that contributes to a healthy and well-
> educated citizen rather than a mindless consumerist robot. Nobody is
> going to do it for you.
>
> Santayana: Those who do not study history are doomed to relive it.
>
> HB
You are obviously a Liberal Commiecrat Freak, you call Sara Palin a
"whore"? What's up with that nonsense, why are you LCF's so nasty to
her? Are you afraid of her or what? It would be funny if not for the
fact that it's so reprehensible. It's so amusing to me that those of
your ilk would give Obama a pass if he raped an infant in front of the
White House on national TV. "Oh he's just having a bad day, it's the
fault of those evil Republicans who pushed him over the edge." You
obviously don't understand that the federal government needs to be
reined in and put back to doing only that which it was designed for.
Unfortunately, many people believe it's the job of the federal
government to take care of them cradle to grave and that they're somehow
"entitled" to it. I have a dear friend who is a raving Liberal and she
is so funny and I adore her so. She voted for Bill Clinton because he
was pretty and Obama was chosen for the same sort of reason. It cracks
me up that no matter what the Liberal elite do with trillions of other
people's money, how much they take for themselves or what ridiculous
thing they blow it on, the poorest Liberal will stick up for them like
they were under the spell of a charismatic cult leader. If you think
I'm a Republican, you're mistaken. Republicans disgust me but Democrats
are special, they horrify me. ^_^
TDD
The Daring Dufas
> In article<ko6dnZJVr8rHUvPQ...@earthlink.com>,
> "HeyBub"<hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> * Public Television - Cancel. Let them compete in the marketplace or rely on
>> donations.
>>
> There was a rather interesting study about 15 years. It pointed out
> that PBS had more than one station in many areas and that it had more
> affiliates than any non-governmental network. They thought that if you
> sold off the extra channels you could set up a trust fund that would
> replace the Fed contribution.
>
I think we have the oldest public television network here in
Alabamastan. They're always running fund raising telethons and
people do donate lots of money. The local programming doesn't
seem to be as Left leaning as the programming from the more
Leftist state's educational institutions. I've seen programming
coming out of places like Boston that's really from out there in
La La Land. :-(
TDD
Stormin Mormon
text, I agree. If you consider more laws to be progress,
then you don't aparently understand the concept of freedom
and responsibility.
The name calling doesn't make you look good, either. Makes
you look hateful and vicious.
How can you encourage people to be independant "nobody will
do it for you" and in the same breath be singing the praises
of government control of everything, so government can do it
for you? You want government to control what people eat,
what the kids study, and how business works. You should
follow your own advice, and let government do to you what it
wants.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Higgs Boson" <hypa...@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:9fec69bf-c01a-4a66...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Who's "worshipping"? You can cite all the hairy breathless