Maybe I am confusing what you're referring to. I got my info from the USDA website named "A Short History of SNAP". Where are you getting your info from?
This is my second reponse so it's going to be a bit brief. I'm not sure why the other one got kicked.
Anyway, food stamps have been around since Eisenhower. Is that temporary? Also, if you're worried about the debt, canceling food stamps doesn't effect it at all in practicality. At some point the debt will need to be addressed but not in a recession. As a rule of thumb, when interest rates start to rise again then spending can be cut back. When that day does come defense and social security will need to take the brunt of the hit. Normally, I would say Medicare & Medicaid would be in that mix but until ACA steadies out we won't know the effects.
8:15AM Frontline announces termination of charter-in contracts of VLCCs (FRO) 2.24 : Co has agreed with Ship Finance International (SFL) to terminate the long term charter parties for the 1998 and 1999 built VLCCs Front Champion and Golden Victory and Ship Finance has simultaneously sold the vessels to unrelated third parties. The charter parties are expected to terminate in November 2013. Frontline has agreed an aggregate compensation payment to Ship Finance of approximately $90 mln for the early termination of the charter parties, of which approximately $11 mln will be paid upon termination and the balance will be recorded as notes payable, with similar amortisation profiles to the current lease obligations, with reduced rates until 2015 and full rates from 2016. Front Champion and Golden Victory have the highest charter rates among the vessels Frontline has chartered in from Ship Finance and the level of compensation is a reflection of this.
These transactions will reduce the Company's obligations under capital leases by ~ $105 mln and the remaining obligations under capital leases following these terminations will be ~ $735 mln related to 15 VLCCs and five Suezmax tankers.
The subject here is food stamps. The reason we're having the discussion is due to scheduled funding cuts. If you believe that the idea of providing a helping hand to the poor and hungry in the base case is a worthy endeavor, which it sounds like you do. Then the question comes down to how that's provided. Should it be provided only from the local level or from a larger pool of citizens. I don't think that anyone would turn away help from around the block. Where I get confused, and a lot of others that I talk to as well, is at the resistence of some to help those across state lines on a federal level. This is a little bit off topic but if you look at the resistance to help the Eastern seaboard after hurricane Sandy. At the same time, the assistance from the tornados in Oklahoma were funded promptly.
That said, I recall being in Britain and meeting some folks in Newcastle whose family had "been on the dole" for 4 generations so I can see your concerns. I just think that some are getting a little ahead of game by cutting food stamps.
Mr. Dan, may I suggest that you read the preamble of the constitution again. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The friends and neighbors that you are hanging your hopes on, are the government. President Lincoln ended the Gettysburg Address with "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
It looks like you're in a really nice place! Have you talked to your broker about selling call options on your FSLR? It's really an huge opportunity for you. As an example Dec75 are selling for $1.36. That's over 2% cash for a little over a month. If it exercises it would be a 23% gain from todays close. Even if it did exercise you can always buy back in if you wanted to. For a variety of different reasons it might not be the right thing for you but it's definately worth a phone call.
I'm really booting myself for missing this.
A few months back I was reading about a solar project in SoCal that's coming on line soon. They have a series of mirrors directing light to a raised reservoir filled with brine. A stream off the top reservoir is directed to a heat exchanger in a closed loop. A secondary stream off of the heat exchanger produces steam at a pressure drop. That steam then drives a turbine/generator. Pretty cool, eh?
Off the top of my head I can't recall another company beating consensus estimates by so much. My concerns about investing in solar companies has been that they would have a similar fate as semiconductor companies. The product is definately here to stay but prices are dropping so fast earnings will have to take a hit at some point. That point obviously isn't here today. Well done!
I don't own FSLR but if I did I think that I would start selling out of money calls against a part of the position. Just a thought.
Friday, 01 November 2013 |
The tanker spot market is currently broken and rebuilding relationships between charterers and shipowners is key to a sustainable market recovery, according to Braemar Seascope's research director, Mark Williams.
Speaking at the Seatrade Tanker Industry Conference in Copenhagen earlier this week, Williams stated that a market recovery could be brought about quickly with large scale scrapping of vessels over 12 years, but that it was not about to happen.
"It happened in the early 1980s, but it won't happen now because you can't get a concerted effort across the industry; because ownership is much more disparate and the global financial crisis has left the banks in a position where they don't want to force owners to demolish ships which haven't had any repayments made on them yet.
Williams used the example of a tanker that was launched straight into lay-up in 1979, and subsequently sold for scrap in 1982. "It only made one journey, and that was from the shipyard to the scrapyard. That's what needs to be happening again."
In a future scenario where vessels are scrapped at 18 years of age, and ordering only replaces demolished tonnage, a fundamentals-based recovery would take around four years.
"In my opinion the spot market is broken," Williams continued. "Since the early 1980s... shipowners have been paid to bear the risk of moving the [oil and products] cargo.
"Over the past four years or so, owners have not been paid to bear that risk. The spot market is not working. If we want a sustainable long term recovery in the tanker markets then we have to rebuild the relationship with the charterers, because at the moment the charterers do not want to see the owners and the owners are not feeling well inclined towards charterers."
Source: Seatrade Global
"I am not making it a political issue." Oh, my bad! Who was it that wrote this? "I understand that liberals have a really really difficult time understanding this..." and this "Hard for a liberal to digest/accept, I understand." It must have been an ignorant troll.
Electricty isn't only about costs. It's also about reliability. You can have the cheapest electricty in the world but if it isn't available when you want to use it then cheap doesn't matter much. By using all of the possible supply sources the reliability increases. There's an old about eggs and baskets that applies.
When there actually comes a time when cars are taxed by the mile I'ld be happy to consider it as an example. Until then you try something in the real world.
Here's another thing Barber. As I wrote on this thread earlier. I have actually gone through and researched power supplies for an actual power grid that I was responsible for. There are arguements against using solar and every other known power supply for that matter. Your gripe about paying subsidies on the grid for those that don't use solar panels, in this case, is trivial.
"I understand that liberals have a really really difficult time understanding this..." Why, oh why, do you insist on making this a political issue? It's not.
"When someone installs a bunch of solar cells they don't reduce the net cost of power, they increase it. Why? Because, all of the non fuel cost of the grid is still there. It doesn't go away. It just gets shifted to other grid users." You're almost there! The grid isn't a government entity. It's own by a for-profit company. They charge for usage by current. In the calculations on what the company charges by the current each entity uses are all sorts of cost; fuel, maintenance, future capital, administration, debt payments, dividend payments, etc... If you use less current off of the grid, you pay less. If you install any approved generation equipment, solar or otherwise, your usage of the grid is less because you are supplying some of your own current and using the grid less. If you don't change your electrical usage habits and continue using the same amount of electricty your per KWH costs may, I repeat may, go up. That doesn't make it a subsidy. It means that you've been unwilling to take advantage of technological advances. If you continued to drive a 30 year old car your gas milage would be a lot less than anything produced in the last 5 years. You wouldn't consider some one driving an old car as subsidizing highway maintenance for you because they pay more in fuel taxes.
Regarding climate change and it's solutions, I think you need to look up the First Law of Holes.
"Hard for a liberal to digest/accept, I understand." That's a possibility. Here's another one. After 2 seperate messages to explain an undefendable position on why conserving energy and creating a more diverse energy supply is costing consumers who use electricity with wanton disregard for resposible usage, you decided to put a political bent on the subject because it doesn't fit with what you've been suppossing would actually happen.
You say that you believe in climate change but the solution is too costly. We'll here is an example of a small, relatively painless, step in solving the problem and you're caught whineing about how you may have to pay a little bit extra for the power grid in the future because you haven't been willing to change your habits.
Just my take.
So by that arguement if I buy an energy efficient refrigerator or other appliance, even though my actual energy usage from the grid is less than before, I should be required to pay the same amount because I'm still paying for the grid? I do believe that utilities will have to ask for rate adjustements for changing economic conditions just like they always have in the past.