July 4th Tea Party

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']On page 351, it talks about how residential buildings will be retrofitted, for energy efficiency, and to be up to federal code. This process will involve home energy audits.
Starting on page 356, the bill talks about the audits. They will be conducted by contractors, using RESNET standards, which can be found here:http://www.natresnet.org/standards/audit/National_Energy_Audit_Standard.pdf[/QUOTE]

I read about this on the crazy forums. They're calling it "Cap and Rape".

They're screaming about how government agents are going to enter your home in violation of the 4th amendment.

AND

Nobody will be able to sell their home unless it passes the inspection.

AND

Nobody will be able to buy a new house because of how expensive the updates will be.

AND

Nobody will be able to keep their house because taxes on energy will effectively bankrupt them.

...

Let's pretend all of this is true. Millions of people have frozen to death in the winter of 2009 and died from heat prostration in the summer of 2010. Now, it is election day 2010. Will you vote for douchebag A who will do nothing or douchebag B who will do nothing or do something else?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']On page 351, it talks about how residential buildings will be retrofitted, for energy efficiency, and to be up to federal code. This process will involve home energy audits.
Starting on page 356, the bill talks about the audits. They will be conducted by contractors, using RESNET standards, which can be found here:http://www.natresnet.org/standards/audit/National_Energy_Audit_Standard.pdf[/QUOTE]


Wow...You clearly didn't even read it. It says public housing and low-income housing are the only residential buildings to be affected by the retrofitting under the guidelines of RESNET. -Definitions start at Page 348 Line 21 Sec 202

The costs of these can not be used to increase rent of residents of such housing. page 360 line 20 (b)

Energy efficiency means less energy and water wasted. Means long term savings. And like the bill says the charges can not be passed on to the tenants.

Private homes will not be affected. No one's privacy will be intruded upon.
What you are ranting and raving about is a draft of the bill that did not make it to the final cut. And even then it only applied to people selling their homes.

Read Here: http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/green_team/Copy_of_wwlp_green_billmayforcehomeenergyaudits_200907011800

Like I said you're spreading misinformation.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Let's pretend all of this is true. Millions of people have frozen to death in the winter of 2009 and died from heat prostration in the summer of 2010. Now, it is election day 2010. Will you vote for douchebag A who will do nothing or douchebag B who will do nothing or do something else?[/QUOTE]

Whch one gives flowery speeches about hope and change? :D
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I read about this on the crazy forums. They're calling it "Cap and Rape".

They're screaming about how government agents are going to enter your home in violation of the 4th amendment.

AND

Nobody will be able to sell their home unless it passes the inspection.

AND

Nobody will be able to buy a new house because of how expensive the updates will be.

AND

Nobody will be able to keep their house because taxes on energy will effectively bankrupt them.

...

Let's pretend all of this is true. Millions of people have frozen to death in the winter of 2009 and died from heat prostration in the summer of 2010. Now, it is election day 2010. Will you vote for douchebag A who will do nothing or douchebag B who will do nothing or do something else?[/QUOTE]

Here's what is going to happen. The price of energy is going to go up, the price of food, and everything else is going to go up, because everyone is going to need carbon credits to use most types of energy. The cost of heating and cooling your home will go up. All of this will disproportionately hurt the poor, and the middle class, because they spend more of their income on essentials. Lots of people will lose their jobs, if there job is dependent on fossil fuels. Those people's jobs will likely move to China. This will further hurt the economy, and possibly bring us into a depression worse than the Great Depression. Let me repeat something for you. This bill will destroy the poor. They will not be able to keep up with the rising costs of energy, and the essentials, which almost all use fuels that produce "greenhouse gases," and therefore their prices would go up under this bill. The middle class will also drastically be hurt by this bill, with increases in the cost of everything, and the further loss of manufacturing jobs. This is why this bill cannot pass. It does nothing to help the environment, and yet it destroys the poor, and the middle class.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Republicans want strong poor people. Luggage is heavy.[/QUOTE]

Suckers. You know, if you keep 'em on welfare so they don't have to work, they get nice and soft ... like veal.
 
[quote name='trq']Suckers. You know, if you keep 'em on welfare so they don't have to work, they get nice and soft ... like veal.[/QUOTE]

That's only if you keep them inside watching TV and surfing the internet.
 
[quote name='HowStern']No way will health care reform cost us more. Like I said France does what Obama wants to do and they spend 3 times less than us per person. Not to mention they are the number 1 health care service in the world.[/quote]

I'm having a hard time figuring out why you think CBO's analysis of Waxman-Markey, in which they specifically state they leave out the effects of job losses and GDP losses (a huge part of the cost), is perfectly valid, yet their estimation of $1.6 trillion for Obama's health care plan is invalid. Please help me out on that one.

[quote name='HowStern']And I'm not believing those other numbers. It's the same song and dance that happened when S02 went under cap and trade. Like Koggit said it may be harder to c02 emissions than it was s02, but in my opinion, it needs to be done. We can't keep sucking at big oil's teet. We need renewable energy. It will be cheaper in the long run and safer.[/QUOTE]

Again, just "I don't believe it" isn't much of an argument. If you have a competing analysis or feel they are wrong for whatever reason, let's hear it. I told you why I think the CBO Waxman-Markey estimate is lowballed, and that is using their own description of their analysis.

Also, if you think W-M will take us away from "big oil" you're sadly mistaken. I would like us to get to less fossil fuels as well (who doesn't?), but current renewable technologies are not good enough for mass replacement of our oil/gas/coal energy supplies. We need to create wealth so that we have enough money to research new energy sources. If we want to reduce coal/gas/oil, a good idea, we should be building breeder reactors like crazy. But wishful thinking alone will not solve this problem, and you can't mandate technological breakthroughs.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Here's what is going to happen. The price of energy is going to go up, the price of food, and everything else is going to go up, because everyone is going to need carbon credits to use most types of energy. The cost of heating and cooling your home will go up. All of this will disproportionately hurt the poor, and the middle class, because they spend more of their income on essentials. Lots of people will lose their jobs, if there job is dependent on fossil fuels. Those people's jobs will likely move to China. This will further hurt the economy, and possibly bring us into a depression worse than the Great Depression. Let me repeat something for you. This bill will destroy the poor. They will not be able to keep up with the rising costs of energy, and the essentials, which almost all use fuels that produce "greenhouse gases," and therefore their prices would go up under this bill. The middle class will also drastically be hurt by this bill, with increases in the cost of everything, and the further loss of manufacturing jobs. This is why this bill cannot pass. It does nothing to help the environment, and yet it destroys the poor, and the middle class.[/QUOTE]

I'll go further: people will DIE because of this bill if it passes. Electricity prices will double and gas/natural gas/fuel oil prices are expected to increase 60+ percent. Keep in mind that food and other commodities take energy to produce and transport, and you're looking at a more than doubling of the price of food. So 60+ percent increase in your travel to get food, doubling or more of the price of food, and doubling of the energy needed to cook the food. Do I (a) eat only one meal a day now? (b) walk two miles to the store and back? (c) not heat my home today? (d) go deeper and deeper into debt? (e) all of the above? Good thing we're "saving the planet" with all this sacrifice! That 0.1 degree C by 2100 (remember, this is the prediction of proponents of this lunacy!) is going to make all the difference, right?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'll go further: people will DIE because of this bill if it passes. Electricity prices will double and gas/natural gas/fuel oil prices are expected to increase 60+ percent. Keep in mind that food and other commodities take energy to produce and transport, and you're looking at a more than doubling of the price of food. So 60+ percent increase in your travel to get food, doubling or more of the price of food, and doubling of the energy needed to cook the food. Do I (a) eat only one meal a day now? (b) walk two miles to the store and back? (c) not heat my home today? (d) go deeper and deeper into debt? (e) all of the above? Good thing we're "saving the planet" with all this sacrifice! That 0.1 degree C by 2100 (remember, this is the prediction of proponents of this lunacy!) is going to make all the difference, right?[/QUOTE]

I agree, and like I said, this bill will (literally) kill the poor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm having a hard time figuring out why you think CBO's analysis of Waxman-Markey, in which they specifically state they leave out the effects of job losses and GDP losses (a huge part of the cost), is perfectly valid, yet their estimation of $1.6 trillion for Obama's health care plan is invalid. Please help me out on that one.
[/quote]
I never said anything about CBO's analysis of Obamas health care plan. I said that France does what Obama wants to do and they pay 1/3 of what we do per person annually for health care.

Again, just "I don't believe it" isn't much of an argument. If you have a competing analysis or feel they are wrong for whatever reason, let's hear it. I told you why I think the CBO Waxman-Markey estimate is lowballed, and that is using their own description of their analysis.

Also, if you think W-M will take us away from "big oil" you're sadly mistaken. I would like us to get to less fossil fuels as well (who doesn't?), but current renewable technologies are not good enough for mass replacement of our oil/gas/coal energy supplies. We need to create wealth so that we have enough money to research new energy sources. If we want to reduce coal/gas/oil, a good idea, we should be building breeder reactors like crazy. But wishful thinking alone will not solve this problem, and you can't mandate technological breakthroughs.
Click to expand...

It was claimed that the S02 cap and trade program would cost $6 billion annually. It only cost 20%-30% of that at $1.1b-$1.8b annually.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

It was a complete success. In more ways than one.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I never said anything about CBO's analysis of Obamas health care plan. I said that France does what Obama wants to do and they pay 1/3 of what we do per person annually for health care.[/quote]

You quote CBO for Waxman-Markey but "don't believe" the numbers they list for health care. The U.S. is not France and the Obama plan is not France's plan, nor is any plan under consideration.

[quote name='HowStern']It was claimed that the S02 cap and trade program would cost $6 billion annually. It only cost 20%-30% of that at $1.1b-$1.8b annually.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

It was a complete success. In more ways than one.[/QUOTE]

I'm happy it was a success. However, SO2 and CO2 are vastly different substances, and not just because one has sulfur and one carbon. CO2 is emitted by every animal on Earth, including ourselves. It is emitted by 86% of our energy production. It is emitted by most of our forms of transportation. It is emitted by agriculture. So you see, it's not merely putting a scrubber on a smokestack that will satisfy the requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. And to top that off, the technology to sequester carbon dioxide is still being developed, as are other technologies that hopefully will be able to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, even if it were as simple as buying a new scrubber for that power plant's smokestack, there isn't a scrubber available that can do what our idiot Congress is mandating they do.

And keep in mind this entire argument is based on unproven theories, and that even if we were to undertake a huge expense to reduce CO2 emissions the result would, according to proponents, decrease temperatures by 0.1 degrees C in 100 years' time. This is a horribly bad tradeoff even if you are fully convinced of the science, and pretty much a complete and total waste if it turns out not to be the case.

To sum up:

If global warming is real = horrible deal
If global warming isn't real = horrible deal
If global warming is real but less than predicted = horrible deal
If global warming is worse than predicted = horrible deal

But don't worry, a vast new bureaucracy to enforce these regulations, which would reach into every aspect of our lives, will be on the way. Hallelujah.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece
 
[quote name='Koggit']we really should've had a cap & trade thread[/QUOTE]

Cap and trade is a flavor of the month. Whether it passes or fails, we'll continue to have meaningless protests afterwards.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You quote CBO for Waxman-Markey but "don't believe" the numbers they list for health care. The U.S. is not France and the Obama plan is not France's plan, nor is any plan under consideration.[/quote]

Where are you getting this idea? I never quoted cbo for waxman-markey. And, yes, Obama's plan is a lot like Frances.
We clearly are not France as our healthcare prices are sky high and not 99% of us are covered.

I'm happy it was a success. However, SO2 and CO2 are vastly different substances, and not just because one has sulfur and one carbon. CO2 is emitted by every animal on Earth, including ourselves. It is emitted by 86% of our energy production. It is emitted by most of our forms of transportation. It is emitted by agriculture. So you see, it's not merely putting a scrubber on a smokestack that will satisfy the requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. And to top that off, the technology to sequester carbon dioxide is still being developed, as are other technologies that hopefully will be able to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, even if it were as simple as buying a new scrubber for that power plant's smokestack, there isn't a scrubber available that can do what our idiot Congress is mandating they do.

And keep in mind this entire argument is based on unproven theories, and that even if we were to undertake a huge expense to reduce CO2 emissions the result would, according to proponents, decrease temperatures by 0.1 degrees C in 100 years' time. This is a horribly bad tradeoff even if you are fully convinced of the science, and pretty much a complete and total waste if it turns out not to be the case.

To sum up:

If global warming is real = horrible deal
If global warming isn't real = horrible deal
If global warming is real but less than predicted = horrible deal
If global warming is worse than predicted = horrible deal

But don't worry, a vast new bureaucracy to enforce these regulations, which would reach into every aspect of our lives, will be on the way. Hallelujah.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece
Click to expand...

Except the auditors (or the "green police" as your article calls them...) will be inspecting buildings. Not animals, not people. So, half this argument doesn't make sense. Yes, all living things put out c02. But we can't eliminate that. We can however eliminate how much polluting a factory does.

Whether it will financially pan out is yet to be seen.
The S02 cap and trade worked perfect though. So, we'll see. I know Europe is having trouble with their cap and trade on C02. But I don't think it has been quite the apocalypse you think it will be.
 
Energy prices have skyrocketed in recent decades in spite of an absence of taxes and legislation tacked onto them.

Nobody died. Well, okay, on guy in Michigan was found in his kitchen with his oven open and on; but he had a mental condition and didn't pay his utility bill at all in several months, despite having more than enough money to do so.

But, so we're on the level here:
1) higher energy costs = DEATH AND DEATH AND DEATH! But,
2) we're living amidst higher energy costs and haven't experienced "death and death and death"
3) oh, it's coming anyway, this time we'll die from taxes!
4) so if I'm clear on this, higher energy costs stemming from profit-hungry free markets = no death and a laissez faire attitude from a number of people. Hey, they might say, it's the free market!

-yet-

5) (proposed, and not even real yet!) higher energy costs stemming from a transition to more energy efficient means has led to outrage among those content in #4, and a claim that death and death and death will occur.

So the important argument to take away is that the messenger, and not the message, is what is fatal.

riiiiiiight.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Wow...You clearly didn't even read it. It says public housing and low-income housing are the only residential buildings to be affected by the retrofitting under the guidelines of RESNET. -Definitions start at Page 348 Line 21 Sec 202

The costs of these can not be used to increase rent of residents of such housing. page 360 line 20 (b)

Energy efficiency means less energy and water wasted. Means long term savings. And like the bill says the charges can not be passed on to the tenants.
[/QUOTE]

Who does get to pay for the retrofitting of the houses, if not the people who use them?
 
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

If I'm paying to fix up someone's house to recoup savings later, I'd rather spend that money on my own home first.
 
Then you shouldn't really be complaining that those poor fools in public housing are getting an upgrade to their shitty houses. One that will save all of us money in the long run.
 
When my own housing could use those upgrade, but I can't afford them because 30%+ of my pay goes into taxes to pay for people who didn't earn my money? I think I can complain.

Want to save us money in the long run? Revamp the government housing program. Instead of making it something that's actually nice, let's make it something that's functional only to the point where it provides basic shelter (protection from the elements, indoor plumbing, heat in the winter, etc.) Turn it into an apartment/condo/jail like system. Make it something people actually strive to get out of.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Who does get to pay for the retrofitting of the houses, if not the people who use them?[/QUOTE]

The landlord. It's only public housing/low income housing.

Sort of like how the landlord is responsible if the apartment has lead paint and you have a child under 3 you want to move in with.

The landlord is required by law to pay for the de-leading, can not deny you the right to move-in if he doesn't feel like paying for it, and can not make you pay for it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']but I can't afford them because 30%+ of my pay goes into taxes to pay for people who didn't earn my money[/quote]

Do you really believe all of the taxes you pay goes to poor people?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Do you really believe all of the taxes you pay goes to poor people?[/QUOTE]

Mine do. Every year, I attach a note to my tax return that reads:

"Please send my collected taxes to poor people. I want to hate them."

...

I like UncleBob's idea of public housing, but want to go further. Let's have one outhouse and one water fountain outside next to a creek or river for every 15 people.
 
Let's go even further and only provide electricity during certain hours. And make sure the buildings look like old Warsaw Pact housing. Every house will be required to have a picture of Obama prominently displayed.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Let's go even further and only provide electricity during certain hours. And make sure the buildings look like old Warsaw Pact housing. Every house will be required to have a picture of Obama prominently displayed.[/QUOTE]

Sweet.

How about letting the owners of the building receive sexual favors from the more attractive members of the housing community in exchange for heat, food or drugs?
 
See, y'all are doing the same slippery slope crap that the people who say "If you let the gays get married, you have to let people marry dogs!"

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to provide cheap - but basic - housing to low income families/individuals.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Energy prices have skyrocketed in recent decades in spite of an absence of taxes and legislation tacked onto them.[/QUOTE]
Energy prices have skyrocketed, huh? They haven't skyrocketed, inflation has skyrocketed. In 39 years the dollar has lost something like 90% of its value. When you adjust the price for inflation, you see that energy prices have for the most part held steady over the past 50 years.
Electricity
(Cents per Kilowatthour, Including Taxes)
Residential
Year Nominal Real (In 2000 dollars) (As in the year 2000)
1960 2.6 12.4
1965 2.4 10.7
1970 2.2 8.0
1975 3.5 9.2
1980 5.4 10.0
1985 7.39 10.60
1990 7.83 9.60
1995 8.40 9.12
2000 8.24 8.24
2005 9.45 8.36
2008 11.36 9.28
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_39.pdf
There is a similar pattern with the other sources of energy, (oil, natural gas,) if you want to look it up for yourself.
Think for a second what a +60% hike in electricity prices would mean. 14.848 (in 2000 dollars) cents per kwh. 18.176 cents per kwh in todays dollars. It may not seem like a lot to some of you, but consider the fact that the cost of living would instantly go up 60%. Why? Almost everthing we use today uses a fuel that emits carbon dioxide. People making enough money to keep up with the poverty line would suddenly have to make 60% or so more. For a three person family this jumps from $18,310 to $29,296. How are they supposed to make around $11,000 more?
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml
4) so if I'm clear on this, higher energy costs stemming from profit-hungry free markets = no death and a laissez faire attitude from a number of people. Hey, they might say, it's the free market!
Click to expand...
There are few if not no 60% increases in the price of energy in recent history. The only situations I can think of that might apply are the oil shocks of the 1970s, but those were mostly because of bad foreign policy decisions. But, OMG!! the free markets are evil! We must give control of everything to the government, because they're so smart, and so not corrupt. They always do things right!
5) (proposed, and not even real yet!) higher energy costs stemming from a transition to more energy efficient means has led to outrage among those content in #4, and a claim that death and death and death will occur.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this bill will solve all of our problems! Especially the job ones, because they will just dissapear to China. If I can't see something, its not there! Never mind that this bill doesn't really help the cheapest, and least carbon dioxide emitting souce of energy, nuclear power. Instead it hopes someone figures out how to make wind, and solar and the like work, for a large amount of our energy needs, because if not, we're screwed.
Also, going back to my point earlier, how would a poor person increase their income enough to pay for the huge new cost of living? Are they going to eat a meal a day? Live at work? Lose their job beacuse they can't afford to get to work? Go without heat in the winter, or colling in the summer? That's why you will see deaths. People won't be able to keep up with the cost of living, and have to go without essientials. And what will this bill really do to help Americans? Nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']See, y'all are doing the same slippery slope crap...[/quote]

No.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to provide cheap - but basic - housing to low income families/individuals.
Click to expand...

They aren't put into McMansions by any means and I see no reason create buildings that stick out like scarlet letters to make you feel better.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I wasn't aware that natural gas and petrol were sold by the Kw/hour.

The more I know, huh?[/QUOTE]

Oh, so you have no real point, just that I forgot a word, that you could easily figure out. You're real brilliant.
 
because electricity powers my gas stove. yes, you're totally right.

remind me to hire you to paint my house, and you can insist that the job is completed when you've done half the rooms I wanted painted.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']See, y'all are doing the same slippery slope crap that the people who say "If you let the gays get married, you have to let people marry dogs!"

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to provide cheap - but basic - housing to low income families/individuals.[/QUOTE]

No. We're just showing you how retarded it is to punish people just to make a point or force them to change behavior. You want to put poor people in the equivalent of a debtor's prison just because you don't like them.

Before you mention cigarrette smoking, realize that smoke affects even the people that don't smoke especially small children trapped in cars with smokers and employees trapped in restaurants with smokers.

Being poor does affect many more people but it's not like you can just go cold turkey and not be poor.
 
[quote name='depascal22']No. We're just showing you how retarded it is to punish people just to make a point or force them to change behavior. You want to put poor people in the equivalent of a debtor's prison just because you don't like them.[/QUOTE]

Cheap, basic housing would not only serve to help individuals want a better life, but would also allow our government to provide more housing with the same amount (or even less) funds.

It's not the government's place to make people feel better. I'd even argue that it's not the government's place to ensure people have a place to live, but I recognize the importance of helping the poorest members of our nation. If it was because I "don't like them", I wouldn't even want to provide them with basic housing. I'd say, let them live like poor people in other countries (say, African or South American countries...)

If we can serve more people with less money, isn't that better? Isn't that what you believe the health care reform proposal will do?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd say, let them live like poor people in other countries (say, African or South American countries...)[/quote]

Why those countries?

Why not any countries in western Europe?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I wasn't aware that natural gas and petrol were sold by the Kw/hour.

The more I know, huh?[/QUOTE]

Natural gas will cost more because of the energy expended to extract, store and ship it.

It may not go up as much as coal, but there will be some effect.

Will this bill kill people? There's that story about camels' backs and straws.

How much higher can unemployment go before riots?

How much higher can food costs go before riots?

How much higher can healthcare costs go before riots?

During those high on the hog times in the dotcom 90's, cap and trade might have bounced off of the resilient Clinton economy. Nobody really knows what it will do with this economy.
 
UncleBob, it's abundantly clear you've never seen Section 8 housing.

There is nothing welcoming about it. And the people are desperate to get out.

The unemployment numbers have nothing to do with people being lazy. There are hard working college graduates who simply can not find work. When it is the governments fault there is no work then I believe it is the governments job to care for the people.
Ideally, the money for this should come from pay-cuts of the politicians responsible. (All of them, basically.)
 
You will get no argument from me on cutting the pay of politicians. ;)

I've seen some S8 housing that - quite frankly - isn't fit to live in. Then, I've seen some that is better than my own home (and no, my home isn't a dump).

My ideal idea would be to get rid of the unfit housing, replace it with the "condo-like" apartment buildings that provide basic, but small, essential, but functional living quarters for individuals and families.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']because electricity powers my gas stove. yes, you're totally right.

remind me to hire you to paint my house, and you can insist that the job is completed when you've done half the rooms I wanted painted.[/QUOTE]
So you have no real point, just personal attacks?

EDIT: Here's the gasoline and natural gas figures if you want them.
Gasoline (dollars per gallon) (Figures before 1980 are for leaded gas, after are for unleaded)
Residential sector
Year Nominal Real (in year 2000 dollars)
1949 0.27 1.64
1960 .31 1.48
1970 .36 1.30
1975 .57 1.49
1980 1.25 2.30
1985 1.20 1.72
1990 1.16 1.43
1995 1.15 1.25
2000 1.51 1.51
2003 1.59 1.50
2005 2.30 2.03
2007 2.80 2.34
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_57.pdf
Natural Gas (dollars per 1,000 cubic feet)
Residential
Year Nominal Real (in year 2000 dollars)
1967 1.04 4.35
1970 1.09 3.96
1975 1.71 4.50
1980 3.68 6.81
1985 6.12 8.78
1990 5.80 7.11
1995 6.06 6.58
2000 7.76 7.76
2002 7.89 7.57
2004 10.75 9.82
2006 13.73 11.77
2007 13.06 10.90
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec6_19.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HowStern']UncleBob, it's abundantly clear you've never seen Section 8 housing.

There is nothing welcoming about it. And the people are desperate to get out.[/QUOTE]

The Section 8 housing around here is actually quite nice, and I hear mostly positive feedback about it... From the people I've visited in it, it looked great to me. But its hard to get in, the waiting list is like 2-3 years. Once they get in, people very much tend to hold onto it and thus demand is much greater than supply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Growing up as a teenager I had some friends who lived in Section 8 here. Holy shit. 12 year olds on drugs. Everyone is trying to sell you something, stolen stereos, drugs, stolen bikes, fucking anything, pots and pans and shit.

It's basically a prison for the poor.
 
[quote name='HowStern']When it is the governments fault there is no work then I believe it is the governments job to care for the people.[/QUOTE]

You're partially right, a good deal of the problem is the government's fault. So government should BUTT THE fuck OUT. But no no no, instead government makes it its business to attempt to control the entire economy through various means (TARP, taking over the auto industry, adding more regulatory bureaucracy, and to top it off the insane Waxman-Markey legislation that is perilously close to passing). Recent polls show most people want smaller government. The people in this case are right, but Washington (and places like Sacramento and Albany) doesn't care.

And evidently there are plenty on this board who don't care that we'll lose millions of jobs to China and India, that energy prices will double (with the attendant domino effect on everything that takes energy to produce, which means everything needed for our civilization), and that this means the poor especially will be in a world of hurt. Nobody even cares to respond to the fact that all this self-inflicted pain will result in a trivial decrease in temperatures even according to the proponents of the legislation. Facts are a hell of a thing, huh?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']So you have no real point, just personal attacks?[/QUOTE]

Correct. Supporting Waxman-Markey is indefensible. Ergo Paul Krugman: "traitors to the planet." When you have no reasonable argument, attack, attack, attack!
 
[quote name='HowStern']Growing up as a teenager I had some friends who lived in Section 8 here. Holy shit. 12 year olds on drugs. Everyone is trying to sell you something, stolen stereos, drugs, stolen bikes, fucking anything, pots and pans and shit.

It's basically a prison for the poor.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, though, that is not the case everywhere. Around here most people see the Section 8 housing as very attractive, and I have personally visited people in it a number of times. It is not the best housing in the world, but it is comparable to other private apartments in the area. Once they get section 8 around here, people hold on to it vehemently due to its good quality at an incredible price.

Although, the majority of people in said housing around here are 30-60 in age.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Correct. Supporting Waxman-Markey is indefensible. Ergo Paul Krugman: "traitors to the planet." When you have no reasonable argument, attack, attack, attack![/QUOTE]

Right. Because it's a personal attack to point out that his initial response, by focusing solely on one type of energy, was therefore incomplete.

I only with the 2008 real values were available. Petrol would skyrocket, and natural gas' growth would be even larger than your chart shows as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top