I am sorry, but all I saw was a web site link and then two or three paragraphs of writing, none of which were in quotes. Please....If you are copying from another site, put the paragraphs in quotes from the article, not just some web site link. Thanks.
Good question. No. Social Security funds should not be invested directly into equities. The reason for this is that markets can fluctuate drastically with long term lows (almost always longer than highs). The one thing one can't control is one's age. If you turn 62 or 65 when the country is in a deep depression, you would get nothing. SS was set up as a safety net. Certainly, there should be means testing in various forms. Some earlier rules should be abolished. Example: SS allows dependents of SS recipients to collect up to half of the check that their father collects if the children are under 18 or going to college if over. If the wife doesn't work, she also collects half. This almost never happened years ago, but now, men fifty have thirty year old second wives, start second families, and by the time the kids are ten they are on SS regardless of income. This should be changed. That being said, SS should not be invested in the "casino." You and I know how hedge funds manipulate, how GS and others have been fined countless times for insider trading, etc. Give them access to the Social Security fund and you will see chaos. They have already manipulated lots of IRA's into oblivion while they trade with computers and on inside info. No thanks.
Nanologix needs massive orders for their stuff soon. If they don't get a large contract soon, then somebody else will have gotten it, and Brett and company can watch someone else make money as has been the case so far.
You are correct in some ways that tax breaks are mostly for those who are better off. That is a good general statement. You get better tax breaks owning your own business and being self employed than wage earners get. It is a rigged game, and business dictates the rules. Remember the golden rule? "He who has the money makes the rules." There may be a few homeowners who want solar but don't want to give up shady yards, but this is very very few. When panels are installed on your roof, your cooling bill lowers, because your roof is now shaded by the panels. There are several home owners' associations that prohibit panels on roofs facing the street, so if your roof is facing south toward the street, you are screwed, but again, that is an association rule, which might require changing within the HOA. We have a few of them here that prohibit panels on roofs that face the street, and if the street is the best direction for solar, you are screwed. That isn't the fault of solar power. In the net metering example, there is no reason that the non solar producer should have to pay more except for the fact that their for profit utility company wants to continue making more money so the company screws them. The utility co. is getting free juice from the solar producer if the producer produces anything more than what they consume. However, because they are entitled to profit, they cry to PUC's that are supposed to be consumer advocate and not shareholder advocate, but they rule in favor of shareholders. Soon, hopefully most of these utilities will either become co-ops or go broke, and the sooner it happens the better off the consumer will be.
I don't think you understood the point I was making. Mr. Shores clearly stated that US retail prices for electricity were at 10.08 cents per kwh. What I was saying was that those figures are false, as you can go to the US government EIA site and get the average retail rate and it is stated that it is over 13% average for the entire US as of July 2014. That is a 30% increase over Mr. Shores stated comment. That is all I was saying. I don't care about Production Tax Credit, as I wasn't addressing it, but rather addressing the erroneous statement that US retail prices for electricity were 10.08 cents. Certainly, there are some places, especially in NW which is hyrdro that a figure is near that but overall US retail average was over 13 cents per kwh for the entire US.
I am glad it was just "your take." Ronald Reagan claimed to be a conservative, and today is worshiped by the far right of the republican party, so you might tell them about his liberal line, as you won't even get libertarians to make that claim. Good try though. Ronald Reagan was much like Richard Nixon....a person who talked out of both sides of his mouth. He baited democrats as being weak and cowardly, and yet it was HE who quickly pulled the US military presence out of Lebanon shortly after the marine barracks were bombed there. At the same time, his lemmings would have crucified Obama for doing the that act. It was Reagan who claimed we "don't negotiate with hostages", and yet he traded arms for hostages solely for political reasons. This is typical of the far right. They are all for law and order on everyone else but themselves and are quickest to hire defense attorneys when they are caught doing something wrong. Nixon was similar. Like Reagan, he was the same type that would screw anyone willing to talk to a communist, until he himself did it. Just like Nixon opening up to China. When democrats suggested it a couple of years before it happened, Nixon relegated them to the communist hit list just like Reagan did when he turned in actors and writers to the McCarthy purge machine. The democratic party really was never like Reagan, as democrats thought it fine to subsidize the common man with taxpayers' monies and to try and elevate the working man, where Reagan believed government's purpose was to subsidize the profits of private corporations. This is similar to what the right wing wants to do today. It is similar to libertarians in that they want to lower taxes to the point that no government programs can be financially stable and they can thereby dismantle government altogether. Kinda funny...but sad.
"With U.S. retail electricity prices at 10.08 cents per kilowatt hour, the PTC allowed wind power producers to hide over 20 percent of wind power costs."
I don't know where you got your quote for the above statement, but if you go to the US gov EIA Energy information agency, there is a list for every state as well as for districts or groups of states such as New England, Pacific NW, etc. In none of those districts does it show retail electric prices at 10.08 cents per kwh, abeit, Washington State retail was near 9%. The rest of the districts were anywhere from over 11 cents up to 31 cents per kwh, and those figures were from July of this year. You can clearly see the increases from back a bit to today. Again...go to the govt. site of the EIA and look at the figures.
"The benefit is probably for folks that don't have the cash or the ability to get a loan to install such a system."
Those folks who don't have cash or the ability to get a loan to install the system are folks that are either renting or are near foreclosure on their homes. This reminds me of the same kind of good deal that the banks and lending institutions did putting people in homes that they couldn't afford. There aren't many low income homeowners anymore Mr. Shores. They are renters and I doubt the rental house owner wants some lease company to have a lean on his rental units. As I said before HFSCU here in Hawaii has interest free loans for nearly every homeowner with interest free for 18 months and the rest of the loan time 8-1/2 years at 3.99% with NO LIEN on the property. Those other outfits can sell your home out from underneath you as soon as you miss their one month electric bill. All the regular solar installers say to stay away from those leases, even though those leasing companies use them to install the arrays, Those leasing companies will add some complexity to sale of home where the standard loan is just a personal loan only for solar energy and is not tied to your home at all. I know, because I just got one so I can borrow the money for 18 months tax free. By then I will have my rebates anyway.
What happens when a movie actor and former screen actors' guild president becomes president of the US?
The debt starts rising like crazy, because after all, he 2 and one half times the debt of California in his first for years as governor after playing GE Theatre and Bedtime for Bonzo movies. I guess he thought that because he could act a little, he could pretend to be president and that would suffice. Oops...I guess he forgot all about his involvement in Nicaragua with the contras, as that would have meant impeachment for willfully violating a law set forth by congress, but Jollie Ollie took the fall for him and then got a pay raise to go on Fox news. What a country. That was after he traded arms for hostages and then said we never do it. To think he is worshiped by the entire right wing shows you how together they are with logic.
Yes...I do disagree first in that solar evangelists believe their experiences are could be achieved by anyone that chose to install solar. If somebody's roof space or yard has shade cover, it won't work, and solar evangelists don't pump it. The same can be said for hi h rise apartment complexes, although many times townhouses are two story, abutted and have continuous roof lines and if exposed to good sun certainly could be used. You are correct in that taxpayers pay subsidies, but that goes for every deduction you are allowed on your own tax return, as somebody else must pay more taxes to cover your deductions. Most people don't live in multi story high rise in NY. In Hawaii, some of the hotels with multi rooms have installed ground arrays outside which tie to their grids. My setup of bigger than most, but still, each panel is only 5' x 3.1' , so stacked on top of each other their are 2 runs stacked, so one only needs an exposed sloped roof that is slightly over 10' to the top and 34' long. In other words about 340 sq feet of available roof space. I would bet even the top of your apartment complex could generate quite a few kilowatts if it isn't shaded. When you talk about "free lunch," please go back and find where I made a claim that solar power was a free lunch?
It is fine you are an atheist, as God does not reveal himself except to those who seek him. You don't seek him, so he is not revealed to you, and you are an atheist. You ask where God comes from, and God himself said "I am that I am." Another quote might be "Who are you to understand my ways, as my ways are not your ways nor my thoughts your thoughts."
You see Lake, those of us that are believers surrender to God. We do so on faith and our faith is received at that time with the Holy Spirit. Read Hebrews 11 v 1 for faith definition. You can go to the very beginning of scripture in Genesis and see that God had faith in himself. He said..."Let there be light, and there was light." He believed in something yet unseen and spoke it into existence, but yet it hadn't existed before.
If you choose not to serve God, that is your business and God's business and not mine or Rogere's. Have a blessed day.
Sorry you have such a restrictive state. Our state requires that when maint is done on the lines in your area, all power is shut off by the utility company, and when that happens, your solar hookup trips automatically, as it is wired that way, and so no maintenance workers can be cooked. Easy solution. If your utility company were smart, they would let his power make the electricity YOU use with his extra generation from his setup, but apparently, your utility company has lobbied the state to disallow grid hookup. Shunting the extra power to ground is wasteful, but it is apparent by what you said that your utility company would really desire solar to be outlawed, as solar in the future will eliminate the need for a utility company as batteries become cheaper and cheaper. As far as your taxes being used to subsidize your neighbor, any deductions you or semper take on your tax filing are subsidized by everyone else that pays taxes. I am sure that some of my tax payments are what allow tax credits for semper's business as well as your business. Your neighbor should be getting 50% electric production from his solar, but he must have a very small system or be very electric consumptive.
Your comments are dilusional regarding solar, especially in my state. First of all, the vast majority of folks here that have solar, also have solar hot water. 1/3 to 1/2 of all electric costs with homes using electricity to provide hot water are costs used solely for hot water. Those are not counted in your figures. Furthermore, you don't have solar, so you have zero experience with it. There are clear solar maps of zones across the US stating how many hours of productive solar generation can be averaged per day. Where I am, it is about 4 hours per day on a very conservative basis, but most solar users state that 5 hours is a safer figure. With a 5 kw system and 4 hours per day, a total KW generation for the day would average 20 kw hours produced. Your total kw usage per month is on your bill. Divide your kw hours consumed per month by 30 and this should give you your daily average usage. For folks on mainland, they will have shorter days in winter, longer in summer. If your meter runs backwards and you are credited with over production, these credits contribute back toward times when you have less production. My average kw usage per day prior to solar was 17 kwh per day. My system being installed is 22 panels with 280 watts/panel or 6.16 kw system, so my output should be over 24 kwh produced per day average which will cyberspin my meter backwards, as my consumption would need to increase about 40% to reach my average panel production. My system is much larger than the average 3Kw to 4Kw system as most folks with pv have solar hot water on the side and so their electricity requirement is far lower .
This is already going on. It is a joke. Customers who pay the up front costs will get the same as others...28 cents per kilowatt hour instead of .43 but the company reserves the right to raise the rates if the utility company raises the rates. Meanwhile, if you don't pay your electric bill, the company will sell your home to get their entire investment. Just go for the interest free loan from HFS federal credit union which is interest free for 18 months then goes to 3.99% and the loan is up to 10 years. The cost for an average home with 4.5 kw system should be about $18,000 installed. Thirty percent back from the feds and thirty five percent back from the state up to $5000 means that the homeowner's out of pocket expense is $7600...One's bill will drop from average about $200 month to $26 a month, so you will save over $174/mo on your bill which can go toward your 10 year payment program and around 4 years you have the whole thing paid off and then start saving the $174/mo for the next 16-21 years which is the guarantee on the panels and microinverters. No brainer.
If oil drops to around $50, ninety percent of the drilling and fracking will cease and North Dakota will be a ghost state. The price will then go up as fast as the Saturn rocket went to the moon. Nobody will drill, because they won't be able to afford to drill.
Huge block buying? Only $200,000 total of stock was traded today. Granted...that is much more than usual but what do you consider "bigger guys?" Guys who buy ten grand worth of a stock?
How many kw is your system? How many panels and what wattage? Thanks. How about you lakeed?