Bill USA
Bill USA's JournalI'll be impressed if the CES had something that would stop Dig TV signal from breaking-up!!
Other than cable companies is there anyone who does not experience periodic loss of audio as well as pixellation of the video portions of the signal??
Fix THAT why don't you. THEN I'd be impressed!
Would a fractal tv antenna do the trick? http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-a-fractal-antenna-for-HDTV-DTV-plus-/?lang=es
Fox, WSJ's Freeman Ignore Economists To Dispute Economic Benefits of Unemployment Insurance
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/09/fox-wsjs-freeman-ignore-economists-to-dispute-e/197507A Fox host and Wall Street Journal assistant editor disputed the existence of a multiplier effect with unemployment benefits -- which generates more dollars worth of economic activity than the dollars invested in the program by boosting consumption -- though the effect is well supported by economic research.
Unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed expired at the end of 2013, abruptly cutting off benefits for 1.3 million Americans. Department of Labor estimates show it would cost approximately $25 billion to extend the unemployment insurance for another year, a step President Obama urged Congress to take during a January 7 speech in which he argued that such an extension would not only help people but help the economy and create jobs.
Wall Street Journal assistant editor James Freeman and Fox host Steve Doocy took issue with the idea that unemployment insurance benefits have a net-positive effect on the economy during the January 9 edition of Fox and Friends:
[div style="background: #EEDDDD;border: 1px solid #773333;" class="excerpt"]DOOCY: We heard this from the president the other day. Unemployment creates jobs. And?
FREEMAN: Yeah. It's hard to explain that one. The administration argument is that there's something called a multiplier, where when you put $1 of unemployment benefits into the economy it creates $1.80 in economic activity. So if this is true, this would suggest we should all stay home and the country will become wealthier by giving us unemployment benefits.
But economists agree that the economic benefits of unemployment benefits outweigh the cost. In what's known as the multiplier-effect -- which Freeman dismissed -- recipients of unemployment benefits reliably spend that money. In fact, Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi estimated that each dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates about $1.55 in economic activity. To put it another way, spending $25 billion on unemployment benefits would increase consumer spending and raise ("GDP" _Bill USA) by $37.8 billion, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
(more)
New University Analysis (CARD): No Changes Needed to 2014 and 2015 Renewable Fuel Requirements
... of course, none of the discussion below addresses the real reason for cutting the RFS blending requirements: to safeguard Oil industry sales and profits. LOL!
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/new-university-analysis-no-changes-needed-to-2014-15-renewable-fuel-require/
(January 3, 2014) WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to slash 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) blending requirements is unwarranted and economically irrational, according to a new analysis released today by Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD). The 16-page report shows that 2014 statutory RFS requirements could be easily met with no new investment in refueling infrastructure, and 2015 requirements could be achieved with only modest infrastructure investments.
In November, EPA proposed to reduce the 2014 requirement for renewable fuel by 10 percent from the statutory level of 14.4 billion gallons to just 13 billion gallons. The Agency cited the so-called E10 “blend wall” as the key factor in its decision to propose the cut.
According to CARD economists Bruce Babcock and Sebastien Pouliot, “…the assumption by EPA that a 14.4 billion gallon ethanol mandate in 2014 was not feasible is not correct. …meeting a 14.4 billion gallon ethanol mandate is feasible in 2014 with no new stations, modestly lower E85 prices, and judicious use of available carryover RINs.”
The analysis clearly details why setting the 2014 blending requirements below the so-called “blend wall” results in a self-fulfilling prophecy that stunts any future growth potential in domestic ethanol consumption. In essence, EPA’s proposal would kill the economic incentive provided by Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits to expand E15 and E85 refueling infrastructure.
(more)
Wind Power's Growth Blown Away by Tax Uncertainty
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/wind-power-s-growth-blown-away-by-tax-uncertainty-20131209Uncertainty over expiration of the wind production tax credit has dealt a devastating blow to the wind industry's forward march.
The numbers tell the story of boom and bust. In 2012, the industry had its best year to date, installing more than 13,000 megawatts of wind-generating capacity nationwide. Utilities shied away from signing new power purchase agreements in the second half of the year, however, because of uncertainty over whether they could complete construction before the tax credit's sunset. As a result, only 1.6 megawatts of wind-generating capacity were installed in the first half of 2013.
"It used to be that your project had to be online and providing electricity to the grid before the credit expired, which was a very hard and fast deadline," Alex Klein, research director for clean and renewable-power generation at IHS Cera, told National Journal Daily. "So by the time the credit was extended as part of the fiscal-cliff deal, the damage was already done to the industry."
Things are a bit different this time around.
(more)
Chris Christie Denies Knowledge Of Bridge Payback Scheme
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/chris-christie-bridge_n_4563921.htmlWASHINGTON -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) denied any involvement in a political payback scheme carried out by some of his top aides on Wednesday, saying the whole thing was "inappropriate and unsanctioned."
"What I've seen today for the first time is unacceptable," Christie said in a statement. "I am outraged and deeply saddened to learn that not only was I misled by a member of my staff, but this completely inappropriate and unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge."
"One thing is clear: this type of behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it because the people of New Jersey deserve better. This behavior is not representative of me or my administration in any way, and people will be held responsible for their actions," he added.
The emails released Wednesday showed that Christie's deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, deliberately plotted to wreak havoc on Fort Lee, N.J., once it became clear that the borough's mayor, Democrat Mark Sokolich, wasn't going to publicly back Christie in his reelection bid.
66% of 38 economists polled by AP said Income Inequality was holding back the economy
... this was reported on various web-sites (including CommonDreams) and mentioned here by Judy Lynn but all the articles stated "a majority of" economists said income inequality was holding back the economy. I checked a number of articles to see if I could find out what 'a majority of' meant. Even on the AP site I could not track down hard numbers ( http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-survey-us-income-gap-holding-back-economy-0 ) although interestingly enough, other numbers from the survey were specified in the AP article. All the AP article said re the poll participants was: "The AP survey collected the views of private, corporate and academic economists on a range of issues." - but nothing on the actual number surveyed or the numbers on each side of the question re income inequality.
Finally, on Yahoo News I found an article that stated the actual numbers of economists polled and how they answered the question re income inequality and the economy. Mafority could mean 51% which is pretty much evenly split. But 66% is a STRONG majority. Very surprised other websites (like CommonDreams) didn't track that down to emphasize the strength of the attitude on the part of the economists polled.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-survey-us-income-gap-holding-back-economy-170643637--finance.html
[div class="excerpt" style="float:right;width:220px;height:300;"]
A key source of the economists' concern: Higher pay and outsize stock market gains are flowing mainly to affluent Americans. Yet these households spend less of their money than do low- and middle-income consumers who make up most of the population but whose pay is barely rising.
"What you want is a broader spending base," says Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James, a financial advisory firm. "You want more people spending money."
~~
~~
The economists forecast that growth will average 2.9 percent in 2014. That would be the healthiest annual pace since 2005.
~~
~~
— The Obama administration's health care law will make little or no difference to the job market. About two-fifths said the law would cost jobs. None said it would increase hiring.
If anybody else can find out more on this, like who exactly was polled, I would appreciate it. I want to refer to this in comments around the web - (like Corporate- M$M sites and more open political discussion sites, like Politico, or Huffington Post). All the info anybody can find on the poll would be of interest to me.
NOte: the AP article did include the following statement which frankly surprised me as it is very relevant but not something the GOP powerstructure would want mentioned in the article:
"Income inequality has steadily worsened in recent decades, according to government data and academic studies. The most recent census figures show that the average income for the wealthiest 5 percent of U.S. households, adjusted for inflation, has surged 17 percent in the past 20 years. By contrast, average income for the middle 20 percent of households has risen less than 5 percent."
Accidental (?) Tax Break Saves Wealthiest Americans $100 Billion
[font size="4"] Here's one worth emailing and calling your Senators and Representative about......
[font color="red"]
"These tax shelters may have cost the federal government more than $100 billion since 2000, says Richard Covey, the lawyer who pioneered the maneuver."[/font]
[/font]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-17/accidental-tax-break-saves-wealthiest-americans-100-billion.html
(emphasis my own)
Federal law requires billionaires such as Adelson who want to leave fortunes to their children to pay estate or gift taxes of 40 percent on those assets. Adelson has blunted that bite by exploiting a loophole that Congress unintentionally created and that the Internal Revenue Service unsuccessfully challenged.
By shuffling his company stock in and out of more than 30 trusts, he’s given at least $7.9 billion to his heirs while legally avoiding about $2.8 billion in U.S. gift taxes since 2010, according to calculations based on data in Adelson’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
EDITORIAL: Look How Easy It Is to Game Estate Taxes
[font size="+1"]Hundreds of executives have used the technique, SEC filings show. These tax shelters may have cost the federal government more than $100 billion since 2000, says Richard Covey, the lawyer who pioneered the maneuver. That’s equivalent to about one-third of all estate and gift taxes the U.S. has collected since then. [/font]
Easy Bypass
The popularity of the shelter, known as the Walton Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, or GRAT, shows how easy it is for the wealthy to bypass estate and gift taxes. Even Covey says the practice, which involves rapidly churning assets into and out of trusts, makes a mockery of the tax code.
(more)
Dark Money Groups Have Already Spent Way More Than You Think
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/04/dark-money-2014-election_n_4533132.html?ref=topbar(emphases [font color="red']my own[/font]
~~
A Huffington Post analysis of press releases, news reports and Federal Communications Commission data collected by the Sunlight Foundation found that dark money groups have dropped at least $24.6 million on issue ads naming specific candidates on television, radio and online video since January 2013. That's seven times the $3.5 million these groups spent on campaign activities reported to the Federal Election Commission over the same period.
Due to the lack of disclosure, the issue advocacy total represents a minimum number. The true total is certainly higher. Total spending on campaign activity comes from data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.
~~
~~
[font color="red"]
Conservative groups have already spent at least $15.8 million on issue ads to promote Republican candidates and attack Democrats ahead of the November midterms. Americans for Prosperity, the nonprofit founded and funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, led all groups with at least $12.4 million spent on candidate-specific ads opposing the implementation of Obamacare.[/font]
Liberal dark money groups, meanwhile, spent at least $3.3 million on issue advocacy with nearly all of that spending coming from the League of Conservation Voters.
(more)
Poll: Congress Risks Voter Backlash For Letting Unemployment Benefits Expire
YOu would think the people responsible for putting all these people outof work by creating the Trickle Down - Deregulation disaster - and then by fighting and filibusering every stimulus bill offered by the Dems to get us out of this Republican Economic Dystopia - would line up to vote for extending Unemployment Insurance benefits. but the Repugnunts are incapable of feeling shame or guilt. They are sociopaths who do not know what shame or guilt is. They are devoid of any values of which they often preach. They believe in nothing. They have no philosophy only tactics. A mass of moral zombies.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/23/3099611/unemployment-voter-backlash-poll/
Republicans could face voter backlash in their home districts for failing to extend long-term unemployment benefits expiring at the end of the month. According to a new poll from Public Policy Polling, a clear majority of voters in five Republican districts support continuing unemployment benefits for Americans unemployed for longer than six months. PPP found that most Republican voters are at odds with GOP lawmakers who are letting funds dry up. Without congressional action to extend the Emergency Unemployment Compensation fund, 1.3 million Americans are about to lose their only income lifeline.
At least 63 percent of voters for district seats held by Mike Coffman (R-CO), Dan Benishek (R-MI), Rodney Davis (R-IL), and Gary Miller (R-CA), support continued benefits for the jobless. Constituents in House Speaker John Boehner’s district likewise support the program extension 63-34. These incumbents also face backlash from their own party. Not only do voters support unemployment benefits, but they also said it would factor into voting decisions. In each district, a plurality of voters answered they are less likely to vote for representatives who fail to extend the program.
While the unemployment rate has fallen in the last year, people who have been out of a job for several months face an especially harsh situation. More than one-third of unemployed people have been out of work longer than 27 weeks. Long-term unemployment rates are particularly high in California and Michigan, where 215,000 and 189,700 unemployed people will be affected.
Congress’ short-term budget deal does not touch the Emergency Unemployment Compensation fund, and Boehner has demanded matching cuts to other federal programs before the House considers an extension. Yet in the past, even GOP lawmakers have argued that the program is vital to the nation’s economic health.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
