waitforufo

No I think they should pay all their contractual obligations. Let's say you and I have a contract. In this contract you agree to pay me a sum of money if I perform certain services. Now I performed those services and I expect to get paid. Well it turns out while performing those services or soon after their completion I discover that you have not been paying your mortgage. Not worry, President Obama has a plan where you are going to be given mortgage relief. So I guess I should assume that you will soon show up on my doorstep and tell me that you cannot pay me for my services rendered because the government is bailing you out on your mortgage. Don' be surprised when I tell you I don't care about your mortgage problems or who is bailing you out. How many other contracts will you no longer be responsible for since the government is writing down you mortgage debt? Many employees have compensation packages that include "at risk" payments. These "at risk" portions of their compensation are generally referred to as bonuses, but these bonuses are not the "profit sharing" bonuses with which most of us are familiar. Sales people for example often have a fixed salary of X, a bonus or at risk portion of Y, plus a commission of Z% of total sales. They get the bonus of Y if they reach a sales quota. If all sales people make their quota the company is profitable. Now if only some of the people make their quota the company may not be profitable. Those that do make their quota do however get there bonus. Without those meeting the quota, the company would really be in trouble. Now you have AIG. Some of the people working there were underwriting bad mortgages. Most were not. You are suggesting that those that were doing their jobs correctly and ethically should be punished along with those that were not. I think those "good" people should be paid. I think AIG is contractually obligated to pay them.

Since you are all in favor of AIG reneging on its contracts, perhaps AIG should also refuse to pay out legitimate claims filed by policy holders. Just think how quickly they would become solvent, and at no expense to taxpayers. Perhaps Obama should suggest this in his next breathless headline grabbing policy statement to the press.

http://www.its.uci.edu/its/publications/papers/ITS/UCI-ITS-WP-76-1.pdf This paper is a bit dated but it claims that cars are a better solution than rail, at least in the case of BART. The study includes the cost of infrastructure for both systems. The paper was written in 1976. It projects fuel economy of 27.5 mpg by 1985. According to this link … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation we are now at 33 mpg (based on BTUs/ Passenger mile). In mountainous areas the analysis presented may not hold up. One other advantage of distance travel by car is that you have a car when you get there. If time permits, I always drive when the distance is less than 400 miles for this reason.

I agree, the solution to nuclear waste storage is to build lots of new nuclear power plants. If we had say 100 new plants in the next decade, the problem of storage could not be ignored. So let's get started building new plants.

I glad we can all admit this is a Democrat/Progressive problem. Republicans/Conservatives would have been building nuclear power for some time now. So what are Democrats and Progressives doing to solve this problem within their ranks?

My point is that it falls in line with everything that Obama wants to do. It will create a lot of jobs. I will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I will reduce our carbon footprint. Yada, yada, yada. Also, with respect to waste storage, we will be forced to find a place to store all future waste created by these new plants. Here is what I suggest. Obama gets Nancy and Harry to co sponsor a bill called something like the "National Electric Generation Emergency Act". When you want to do something fast, its always good to put in the word "Emergency." The act would 1) Empower the Army Corps of Engineers to select 100 sites for new nuclear power plants. 2) The sites will be purchased by the federal government by eminent domain. (I mean come on this is an emergency.) 3) From those 100 sites, the best 50 are selected for ground breaking in the next 4 years. (Look, if we can put a man on the moon in a decade, we should be able to break ground on 50 nuclear power plants in 4 years.) 4.) While the above is being done, the Army Corps of Engineers, with the support of nuclear power plant construction contractors, develops a common design for the power generation unit and sets specifications of unique site foundation designs. 5) Site foundation designs are sent out for bid. Bid winners begin immediate construction. 6) When foundations are complete, common generation unit construction begins. 7) The US Navy trains operators and operates the plants when complete. 8) After he whole system is up and running the system is privatized permitting the government to recoup is losses. This also means that the federal government would have to find solutions to troublesome plants poorly constructed or located on troublesome sites. 9) All waste generated from the new plants could be stored in lead lined concrete containers, shipped to Washington DC and stored on the National Mall until congress gets off its dead ass and comes up with a better storage solution.

Again this statement has no basis in history, particularly the history of the United States. You can continue to present this as a statement if fact, but it is a completely unsupported position.

Okay then, lets stay on topic. Obama makes himself out to be, among other things, the new FDR. Well FDR had huge public works projects that created much of our existing electric power generation. You know, things like the TVA (many dams), Grand Coulee, Boneville, Fort Peck and the completion of Hoover. So if Obama is not against nuclear power, and our country needs to dramatically reduce its CO2 output, and Obama is the new FDR, how many nuclear power plant ground breaking ceremonies should we expect during Obama's administration? I would like to see at least 50 during the next 4 years. Too high? Too low?

Well I for one hope the market has bottomed and that this recovery is real and lasting. I take no pleasure in losing money. Last week however could be nothing more than short sellers taking profits. Only time will tell.

I'm sure the fact the Harry Reid is up for reelection in 2010 had nothing to do with this decision.

Nice try, I'm sure you would like that very much. But instead of the simple map showing the scary dangerous path the waste will have to travel, we will now need a globe.

Have you ever provided any support for this opinion? The fact that opposite sex marriages are and have been pervasive in the United States from its founding and same sex marriages are non existent doesn't give you any help at all?

You would think that a "Giant Atomic Reptile" would be all in favor of storing toxic nuclear waste over an active volcanic fault system. Are you afraid it would create too much competition? As bascule points out in his OP we have a significant issue with existing waste. As a person living in eastern Washington State, this issue is of particular interest to me. Hanford will soon be creating nuclear waste vitrified glass blocks from the slop left over from the cold war. With the closure of Yucca Mountain they plan to store this waste above ground in warehouses until a Yucca Mountain replacement can be found. Yea, thats a lot safer then Yucca Mountain. There seem to be some that prefer not to solve this problem. Closing Yucca Mountain in my opinion is simply a political payoff to the Jane Fonda / Robert Kennedy jr. branch of the Democratic Party. Nuclear power is a third rail issue to many Democrats. Why deny this well know fact. By closing Yucca Mountain, increasing electric power generation via new nuclear power plants will be significantly curtailed. Why pretend this is not the goal.

I recall reading several years ago a paper on passenger travel based on BTUs / Passenger mile traveled. I remember being quite surprised how well automobiles stacked up against mass transit systems. If I recall they were better than buses, light rail (BART in particular) and most trains. I seem to recall this was true even when infrastructure construction was considered. Mass transit suffered, particularly buses, in that they most often travel with few passengers on board. The data in the paper was either from the US department of Transportation or Energy. I tried a Google search and did not find anything I considered reliable. Anyone know where this data might be found? I believe George Will also wrote a few articles on this topic. Also, how well do high speed trains perform based on BTUs / Passenger mile? I would be particularly interested to see the data with infrastructure construction and maintenance included. Such data should be compaired to air travel.

Modern people reviewing the history of marriage law have much to cringe at. Today the focus is on gays. In the recent past and extending into today, feminism was the focus. The words marriage, husband, and wife are all very politically charged words. If you doubt this, read what Blackstone had to say about marriage. Much of marriage law today is based on his opinions. The central concept in marriage is that when a man and woman become married they become one person in law. Many modern people, particularly feminists, object to this. This concept has advantages and disadvantages. For example one spouse cannot be compelled by law to give testimony against another. Since they are one person in law, this would denying them their right not to self incriminate. If your spouse is a tax cheat however, you may loose your property or even go to jail. Do I think people in the present should be saddled with obsolete legal concepts of the past? No, I think they should be able change them. Our system provides several methods for changing legal concepts. The two most important are legislative means and constitutional amendments. When legal concepts are changed by these means, the changes are supported by the will of the people. Using these methods is often not a pleasant experience. It can also be painfully slow. Another method of changing legal concepts is through the courts. I am generally not in favor of this method. I am particularly not in favor of the courts pretending that modern definitions of words have always existed. In fact, often times the modern definition of words are not widely accepted. Permitting courts to choose the definitions of words based on personal preference, in my opinion, is a very bad thing. Can liberty survive such a system? With regard to the conjunction of marriage, law, and religion, I think this linkage is very weak. Proof to this is that the Supreme Court has ruled that "religious belief is not superior to the law of the land", particularly with regard to marriage. The only linkage religion has on legal marriage is its influence on the definition of words that have been incorporated into law. Legally redefine the words, (marriage, husband, wife, spouse) which I support, and you change marriage law. Ignore the meanings that existed and were used when creating present law only undermines law. Finally, the present organized resistance against changing marriage laws is dominantly religious. This should not be surprising since religious institutions, like political parties, provide a formal structure to organize social opposition. (This by the way has often been beneficial to society. Think Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce and many others.) I think it is naïve to assume that the religious leaders guide their members like sheep on the issue of marriage. People hold strong opinions about their marriages and on how marriages impact family and social structure. They hold these opinions independent of their religious beliefs. If their church is the only social institution willing to promote their opinion, it is their that they express their opinions and organize to resist change.

Fair enough, in a modern context you have a very good point. The Reynolds decision however was handed down in 1878. As I said from the beginning the Reynolds decision could be used by a modern court to understand how laws from the past defined the word marriage. Another example may be to look at states that have common law marriage. These states are.. Alabama Colorado District of Columbia Georgia (if created before 1/1/97) Idaho (if created before 1/1/96) Iowa Kansas Montana New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only) Ohio (if created before 10/10/91) Oklahoma Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05) Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah In these states all two people have to do to be married is… 1) Live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state) 2) Hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and 3) intend to be married. So have you ever heard of a case where two men or two women had a legally recognized common law marriage? I never have. Why? Well perhaps its because everyone commonly understands the definition of marriage. Well, now we live in modern times and I for one think that definition needs to change. As I have said, I look forward to the day when legislatures agree on a better definition and how the new definition will impact laws from the past.

Part of "due process" in the US requires that laws be written so that a person of common intelligence can understand them. Now you tell me, if you ask a person of common intelligence what kind of person has a wife? Will they not say husband? If you ask a person of common intelligence what kind of person has a husband? Will they not say wife? Based on this common law understanding of the words husband and wife, doesn't the following law define legal marriage as between one husband and one wife at least in US Territories? Is there really any confusion here?

I think dropping the word marriage would be impractical. What about all the existing marriage licenses? It's a political non starter. The current common law definition needs to be replaced with a specific legal definition.

ParanoiA, thank you. Sayonara³, calm that bulging vain. Remember, I support gay marriage. A common person understand of the law is still important in determining intent. I don't think any common person in 1878 would have interpreted the law I mentioned the way you have. Also I mention just one aspect of the Reynolds decision. It is an important case dealing with marriage. For example the Judge Waite states that religious opinions on marriage are irrelevant to marriage law. For example Judge Waite states So in other words a person is free to believe what they want about marriage but they still have to follow the law. One could also say you can make up your own definitions about words but those new definitions don't change the meaning of law. Anyway I do think the case could have impact on gay marriage.

Much of the discussion in these gay marriage topics has to do with the definition of the word marriage, how that word was defined when marriage laws were written, and was it the intent of those laws to define a relationship between oposite sex couples exclusively. My understanding is that when judges, particularly Supreme Court judges, interpret laws they at least consider the meaning of words at the time the laws were written. It is also my understanding that they use historical documents and sources other than directly applicable precedent cases. For example, judges may look at the declaration of independence, the articles of confederation, or even the magna carta. It seems likely to me that they would also look at past Supreme Court cases that dealt with marriage when looking for an understanding of the past definition of the word marriage. So much has been made about the fact that there are no laws that specifically define marriage as between one man and one woman. But there is or was this law. http://supreme.justia.com/us/98/145/case.html My guess is that this law is still in effect in places like Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As I said in my last post, this law in effect states that in territories of the US marriage is between one husband and one wife. If you read Judge Waite's majority opinion of the courts unanimous ruling it is quite interesting (REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES). I think this opinion could be easily used by judges today in attempting to understand the meaning of the word marriage at the time the opinion was written (1878). I think it would be a stretch to conclude that the judges hearing this case did not understand that the word husband related to men exclusively and the word wife related to woman exclusively.

I have not participated in any of the gay marriage topics for some time, so perhaps I should first remind people of my position. I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't see how permitting same sex couples to marry would impact my life, liberty, or property. Because of this I don't see how it is my business or why it should be prohibited. Having said that, I do think gay marriage is something new. I can appreciate how laws created based on a well established understanding of the word marriage may not apply if the meaning of the word marriage now included same sex couples. I don't think a "separate but equal" civil union substitute is the answer either. To me, the best solution is for this to be determined by state and federal legislatures. Prop 8 for example was a backlash response to a California Supreme Court decision which created same sex marriage in California. I look forward to the day when legislatures decide to permit same sex marriage. Having said that, I have not seen any discussion in the gay marriage topics on science forums regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court decision "REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES." This decision upheld the prosecution of a man for bigamy. I admit that it is a stretch, but the law the man was prosecuted for states… "Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years." This law in effect states that marriage is between one husband and one wife. The Supreme Court unanimous upheld the conviction of Reynolds. The majority opinion was written by chief justice Waite. Its interesting reading. It includes the following. Okay, so Reynolds defense was prohibiting bigamy violated is freedom of religion rights. Waite's opinion says this law that defines marriage as between one husband and one wife establishes the "organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States." He then points out that Reynolds broke this law by marrying a second time. Like I said, my interpretation may be a stretch but this precedent could be used further prohibit gay marriage.

My guess is that individuals are about to learn a similar lesson with regard to mortgage relief, socialized medicine …..

I can read this. Reading the market past is rather simple. If I could read its future my life would be much improved.

You people crack me up with your opinions about who invests in the stock market. Comments such as "elite rich" and "small, highly biased, poorly representative portion of this and other countries." You act like the only investors that matter in this country are the Rockefellers, Kennedys, DuPonts, and Morgans. If this were ever true, which it is not, such a notion vanished with the creation of the 401k. You can thank Jimmy Carter and the Democratic controlled House and Senate back in 1978 for that one. Real wealth is being destroyed. Ask anyone with a 401k. Ask any retired person. Institutional investors are pulling out of the market. This is for two reasons. First, we are in a housing correction which hit banks and PMI insurers very hard, particularly the crooks and AIG. Second, the markets don't like what they are seeing coming out of our government. They are not just looking at the bank bail out or the stimulus package (which they don't like). They don't like cap-and-trade, socialized medicine, or foreign trade policy. Where are investors putting their money? Well, not in the US. If they were, the companies they were investing in would be going up. Indexes like the S&P 500 would be neutral. Still don't think real wealth is being destroyed, wait until the government looks at tax returns this year. Instead of taxable income from dividends, and capitol gains, they are going to see tax deductions for capitol losses. Much less tax revenue. Much bigger deficits. I know, don't worry, we will soon be riding the electric bus in a green world with free health care. I hope the views from atop the big rock candy mountain are beautiful.

You do appreciate that this speculation on your part is in large measure in line with the opinion of jackson33. The difference is that you have no problem with the new direction or the wealth destruction that goes along with it.