Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
Alright,
As wrong as it is, it's a reality. No use pissing and moaning - we're going to have to deal with it. What exactly does it mean for us and what exactly are we going to have to do? I've moved my portfolio away from anything where I cover utilities anyway. Nevertheless, all commodities will raise in price because of this in the face of massive amounts of printed money...
Is it time to re-examine certain commodities markets to protect the value of dollars today because of the inevitable increased costs of getting it out of the ground?
Real Estate Broker · Rochester Hills, MI · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
17y
Well since this is now moving to the Senate you should contact your Senators and let them know how you feel about it.
In person - on the phone - in emails - through US post office.
To their state office - their local office - their DC office.
This bill will not pass in its present form in the Senate so it will be changed and go to committee and then might be voted on again so you need do the same for your house members.
Once the final bill is out and you know what your dealing with you can make plans - till then - make your opinion known (not just here - but where it counts - in DC).
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
What exactly does it mean for us and what exactly are we going to have to do?
Who the hell knows?
The frigging bill is 1200 pages long and was just written this week (with 300 pages added the night before it passed), so I can't imagine anyone has actually read it yet...let alone knows what it means...
In theory, it sounds great...but with how they rushed it, I'm sure in reality it's a piece of crap...
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
Oh, Tim.
It doesn't really matter, We are all going to die from air pollution in ten years anyway. ... Which bring me back to the argument appreciation vs. cash flow.
CASH FLOW hands down!! Who care for appreciation with such short life... :protest:
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
CASH FLOW hands down!! Who care for appreciation with such short life... :protest:
Holy crap.... Eddie, we're blood brothers and didn't even know it. I just had an epiphany. This is why cash flow rules. Cash flow will buy the pina colada today, while appreciation waits for you to die some more before you get to enjoy it. Ok, just hijacked my own thread....lol. Back on topic.
Real Estate Broker · Rochester Hills, MI · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
17y
Well since this is now moving to the Senate you should contact your Senators and let them know how you feel about it.
In person - on the phone - in emails - through US post office.
To their state office - their local office - their DC office.
This bill will not pass in its present form in the Senate so it will be changed and go to committee and then might be voted on again so you need do the same for your house members.
Once the final bill is out and you know what your dealing with you can make plans - till then - make your opinion known (not just here - but where it counts - in DC).
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Well, the stated goal of the legislation (the "in theory" part) is to reduce greenhouse emissions by about 90% by 2050.
Seeing as 72% of greenhouse gas is water vapor and 80% of the earth's surface is water, I see how this plan is completely conceivable and logical, rather than some cooked up piece of bullsh-- legislation intended to pay off friends for political favors.
Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
17y
****"Well, the stated goal of the legislation (the "in theory" part) is to reduce greenhouse emissions by about 90% by 2050.
As someone who would like future generations to inherit as viable a planet as possible, that sounds great to me."****
The funny thing is I'm pretty sure your serious. So you believe that a bill that these whack jobs put through is actually going to do some good? And where does this 90% figure come from?
All these people care about is getting Re-elected. The fact is we're going to be taxed to death (literally) by all this BS they are going to eventually pass and we'll never see anything for it.
Fortunately I'll figure out a way around their ridiculous taxes because I have the ability to utilize the IRS tax code to work in my favor (like an employee cannot). The working class are going to be affected the most and they don't even see it.
I find it interesting that our Govt. can come up with all these new taxes disguised as some new bill that will save the planet and people get excited about it. What an interesting world we live in.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Jeff And Cheray Warner:
The funny thing is I'm pretty sure your serious. So you believe that a bill that these whack jobs put through is actually going to do some good?
Now Jeff. Just because he believes in whack job liberal legislation while with the most unproven numbers possible, while attacking Republicans at every possible moment - NEVER FORGET! Jason's a Libertarian. Even though Ron Paul has very heavily come out against Cap and Trade as the biggest tax in American History - NEVER FORGET! Jason's a Libertarian.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Seeing as 72% of greenhouse gas is water vapor and 80% of the earth's surface is water, I see how this plan is completely conceivable and logical, rather than some cooked up piece of bullsh-- legislation intended to pay off friends for political favors.
Unfortunately, the fact that the average person is illiterate with respect to basic science makes this an even more difficult problem to solve...even disregarding the politics...
Basic science lesson...
The goal isn't to drastically reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (if we wanted to do that, we'd have to get rid of the clouds first, as they are the major greenhouse culprit)...in fact, we need most of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to survive (it's one of the major differentiators of our planet).
The actual goal is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by a small percentage of the total.
By reducing just a small percentage the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, we can (in theory) reduce man-made/precipitated global warming.
And, the way to reduce greenhouse gases by a small percentage is to reduce the man-made emissions via manufacturing by a large percentage.
Once you understand the science, you realize that -- from a scientific standpoint -- it's quite conceivable. But, from a practical standpoint, it's unlikely we're going to change our habits enough to actually accomplish anything significant.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Seeing as 72% of greenhouse gas is water vapor and 80% of the earth's surface is water, I see how this plan is completely conceivable and logical, rather than some cooked up piece of bullsh-- legislation intended to pay off friends for political favors.
Unfortunately, the fact that the average person is illiterate with respect to basic science makes this an even more difficult problem to solve...even disregarding the politics...
Basic science lesson...
The goal isn't to drastically reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (if we wanted to do that, we'd have to get rid of the clouds first, as they are the major greenhouse culprit)...in fact, we need most of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to survive (it's one of the major differentiators of our planet).
The actual goal is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by a small percentage of the total.
By reducing just a small percentage the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, we can (in theory) reduce man-made/precipitated global warming.
And, the way to reduce greenhouse gases by a small percentage is to reduce the man-made emissions via manufacturing by a large percentage.
Once you understand the science, you realize that -- from a scientific standpoint -- it's quite conceivable. But, from a practical standpoint, it's unlikely we're going to change our habits enough to actually accomplish anything significant.
Basic geology lesson. In a singular event, Mt. St. Helens released more greenhouse gases than the entirety of manmade production of all human history. This "science" is a crock.
Back to the topic of how to deal with the financial effects of Cap and Trade. Not the fuzzy science of a left wing libera.....I mean Libertarian.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
This "science" is a crock.
Actually, there isn't a whole lot of science around it at this point.
Personally, I don't believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, but without a lot more data, no-one will know for certain.
But why does that matter?
Reducing manufacturing emissions and using clean energy has a lot more benefits than just potentially reducing global warming. Pollution is a huge problem as well, and I guess I just don't see the reduction of pollution as a bad thing.
Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
17y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Jeff And Cheray Warner:
So you believe that a bill that these whack jobs put through is actually going to do some good?
No Jeff, I don't. In fact, I've clearly stated that in this thread.
In my first post, I said:
"I'm sure in reality it's a piece of crap..."
You clearly just want to rant as opposed to actually reading what I've said and having a constructive discussion.
Never forget, attention to detail is a very important part of being an investor.
While there is certainly some BS in with this and every other bill they pass, my point with this debate is to point out that you "In Theory" agree. That's what I don't understand and was looking for clarity on.
We can talk all day long about greenhouse gas, global warming or any other "issue" that these liberals like to constantly debate. The fact is this planet has and always will do whatever it wants and there is NOTHING we can do about it. If the earth wants to get HOT, charging higher taxes and taking junk cars off the road is not going to do anything.
Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
17y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
This "science" is a crock.
Actually, there isn't a whole lot of science around it at this point.
Personally, I don't believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, but without a lot more data, no-one will know for certain.
But why does that matter?
Reducing manufacturing emissions and using clean energy has a lot more benefits than just potentially reducing global warming. Pollution is a huge problem as well, and I guess I just don't see the reduction of pollution as a bad thing.
Reducing pollution is not a bad thing at all. It becomes a joke when they TAX THE SH** out of us to "Reduce Pollution". These are politicians looking for votes and ways to generate cashflow for their buddies, not good people that genuinely want to make a difference.
Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Originally posted by Jeff And Cheray Warner:
The funny thing is I'm pretty sure your serious. So you believe that a bill that these whack jobs put through is actually going to do some good?
Now Jeff. Just because he believes in whack job liberal legislation while with the most unproven numbers possible, while attacking Republicans at every possible moment - NEVER FORGET! Jason's a Libertarian. Even though Ron Paul has very heavily come out against Cap and Trade as the biggest tax in American History - NEVER FORGET! Jason's a Libertarian.
Are you clear?
Sorry Tim, I got it now. Maybe they should call it the Liberal-tarian party?
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Jeff And Cheray Warner:
I think I'm going to start a new movement:
STOP GLOBAL COOLING!
Are you with me Tim?
Jeff
Actually, the Global Cooling of the 1700s is why the US has such a tradition of grain alcohol. It was too cold for the grape vineyards, but just fine for wheat, barley, rye, etc... Also deer up north in Canada have much bigger bodies to deal with the extreme cold. So if it means more beer and bigger deer....this Global Cooling thing may not be so bad.
How on earth did the United States survive the cooling of the 1700s without Obama?
We're going to have bigger taxes, there's no way around that. Mike Rossi mentioned a federal program in place once for making low income housing energy efficient.... If you happen to read this thread - what was that Mike?
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Jeff And Cheray Warner:
The fact is this planet has and always will do whatever it wants and there is NOTHING we can do about it. If the earth wants to get HOT, charging higher taxes and taking junk cars off the road is not going to do anything.
Right, there is likely nothing we can do about the planet heating or cooling.
But, (hopefully) you'll agree that all the pollution is man-made, and (perhaps) you'll agree that it would be nice if our kids could live in a world with a bit less of that crap.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by J Scott:
But, (hopefully) you'll agree that all the pollution is man-made
Do you honestly believe that? What do you think naturally occurring forest fires put into the air? Happy smoke? And surely you must know about how much natural oil seepage there is versus man made seepage. The La Brea tar pits aren't Exxon's fault.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
We're going to have bigger taxes, there's no way around that.
This certainly isn't directed at you Tim (I know absolutely nothing of your business or your financial situation)...but your comment reminded me of this fact...
Spending most of my professional life working with some of the richest people in the world, and now being in the real estate industry during a recession, I've started to see what appears to be a correlation:
It's the people with the most money who complain the least about taxes, and the people with the least money who complain the most.
My take is that it's the people who don't concern themselves with which direction taxes are going, and instead concern themselves with scaling their business and making it tax-efficient in any political environment, who are most likely to earn the most money.
Don't know if that's true or not, but it does pass the common-sense test...
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Do you honestly believe that?
No, I don't.
It was a big mistake on my part saying that "all" pollution was man-made. As you pointed out, this is blatantly incorrect.
What I should have said is that a non-negligible percentage of pollution is man-made (if you disagree, fly into LAX or Tokyo at dusk), and decreasing the amount of pollution in the air is a good thing.
Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
17y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
We're going to have bigger taxes, there's no way around that.
It's the people with the most money who complain the least about taxes, and the people with the least money that complain the most
I disagree with that. Most employees that are working for 40-50% money obviously have to buy everything with after tax dollars. The only reason I point that out is because a lot of these people don't complain. My theory on why they don't complain is because they don't know any different AND because they don't know there are ways around it, not because they simply don't object.