never said they were

Quote:


I'm with you. Warren Buffet is my guy. He said that there was no money in ethanol. So far he got that right. I too heard him talk about wind, solar and other stuff. If he's into it, it's a good deal.

It's going to be an interesting thing watching tons of money made on new enegy. No matter your politics, it's on the way.

At a K-Mart parking lot, I spent some time talking to a guy with a Prius. He gets 52 miles to the gallon driving in my pretty hilly part of the country. How much are these things? 45-50 thousand?

Charlie

Wind turbines are used successfully in Germany to generate electricity.
Sandra

I like Canada!  Two years ago I had an auto accident there and was taken to a hospital emergency room.  I wasn't charged anything at the time but later received a bill in Germany, which I paid and then I received a "Thank you" note from the doctor!
Sandra

I pay a little less per KWH using wind generated power, a choice my electric company gives me.

Being in the Sunbelt, solar, through PV panels is really cheap. The panels, unfortunately, are not cheap. I believe my electric company is starting a large scale solar project soon, but I have no details.

Paul, I like your garbage idea, LOL. If only...

I think the key to this is learning to harness and use what we have available... not producing things as new energy sources.

Solar, wind, geothermal ... we've got plenty of that. And they don't run out.

interesting post jonny.

any of these muppets who decide what our energy policy is going to be has never had a blue collar job in there lives. using solar and wind to power our homes is a great idea but lets face it, thats not going to get popular until big business can fill the gap of money thats going to be lost from selling you fossil fuels. the same people who would profit from this technology are the same people that pay for the fuel in al gores jet to fly around the country to tell us about an inconvenient truth. 

ethanol and biodiesel is a joke. the amount of pollution that it takes to produce these fuels is more than if you just burn gasoline. it costs more and it's not as efficient.

if you can"t burn coal that puts alot of truck drivers and coal minors out of a job. not to mention steel mill workers. i guess we could push all this non clean manufacturing and industry down to mexico were they have no epa. the liberals have a great idea for keeping the environment clean. in the long run, mr. and mrs. truck driver, mr. and mrs. coal minor, and mr. and mrs steel working won't have a job and won't be able to buy gasoline and pay for electricity however its produced.

and another thing. hows come none of these guys are addressing all this cheep plastic garbage from china that poisoning our children. after all isn't china a communist country?

heres a guy who can straighten shit out

liberals make me wanna puke!!!! these are the same jerks who think its fine to abort a human baby, but "oh my God, dont kill that spotted owl"!!   And as far as the price of oil, THIS IS AMERICA, EVERY BUISNESS IS IN BUISNESS TO MAKE MONEY!!!! PERIOD. doesnt matter if you make gas, or dildos, you do it to make a profit! Yea. i work in a refinery, and NO i dont get a gas discount !,   I am just "joe average" but as i have said on here before, there is PLENTY of oil RIGHT HERE IN THE GOOD OLD USA. its no secret, hell, do you have any idea how many oil wells were capped in this country by the government in the 40's to keep prices and the economy strong???? thousands!!!!!   Ok Jonny, you got me started , now I am going off on a rant!!!!! personally I think its time we take a big old grinder to that plaque on the statue of liberty! sorry folks , NO VACANCY, we are full up. there was a time when we we needed you, now we are full!!!! check the history books folks, Hoover, during the depression deported hundreds of thousand illegals back to mexico so americans could have jobbs, in the 50"s Ike did it too, is was executive order "operation wetback". one point three million mexicans BACK to mexico to preserve jobs and keep the economy strong. oh hell I could go on all day!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your right Brew, I gotta let this out!!!!! libs, ah yes the libs,,, now, I work at a job, make pretty good cash, and the gov TAXES the $hit out of me, now, I HAVE to pass a drug test to get this job, and I HAVE to pass random tests to KEEP this job. now the government takes a BIG chunk of my taxes to pay for unemployment benefits , soooo, here is the question,, do these "unemployed" have to pass a drug test to pick up their "free" check?!?!?!?!!? I bet if they did there would be ALOT less unemployed!!!!!!!     Tuck

tuck wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 10:43pm:


"my" can be construed as from your paycheck.

FUTA and SUTA are paid soley by an employer, not employees.  FUTA yearly max to an employer is generally $56.00 per employee with SUTA payment credit.  SUTA can vary depending on how many employees are laid off by a particular company, many permanent.
 For instance, due to the high price of fuel, operating costs for airlines have soared resulting in heavy labor cuts and letting employees go due to outsourcing of jobs, they pay higher SUTA rate.  The auto industry pays a higher SUTA due to higher fuel costs for consumers leading to drastic sales declines closing operations and lost jobs.  Unlikely the oil industry pays these rates right now.
 Finding new jobs in these environments can take time when a state's unemployment rate is about 8.5% through no fault of their own.  In this city, with the foreclosure rate this year at 11.3 per 1000 residential parcels (and noticeably empty business buildings), without something to sustain while job hunting it would be higher, involving more taxpayer money yet for loan bailouts and public services.

Quote:


If a person was unemployed due to drug use, I'd hate to be them trying to collect benefits.  A general rule of collecting is through no fault of their own.
 

Kev, I don't think he was talking about the 8.5% -- I think he was talking about the deadbeats (at least that's where I was coming from -- the ones that work the "minimum" time then apply for unemployment - you know those kind - the employers "nightmare!" ie., I had a guy quit after a few weeks cause I told him to empty his trash can - I empty MINE - but he got beligerent cause "HE wasn't the damn maid (I didn't have a damn maid!)" - took me weeks to fight that claim!).

Hugs BD

tuck wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 10:43pm:



heres a better idea. how about we do away with drug testing all together. hardly seems fare for somebody to lose their job for something they did in their own  personal time. what you do off the clock is your business not your employers or even the government for that matter.