...you sound like you are howling at the moon.
This is the Internet. That is what they do here.
That being said, your civics lesson left out the large role lobbying and campaign contributions play in the decisions and actions of both Congress and the Executive. While the President can safely ignore the ranting of Internet dogs, he and the other players can't just blow off the leaders of some of the largest, most profitable corporations in the world. Mr. Obama may not be seeking re-election, but anyone looking for $$ from that crowd would do well to notice that they don't give a damn about the ACA and are up in arms about the NSA.
It’s the latest twist in America’s fraught relationship with biofuels, which started in 2005 when Congress first mandated that a certain amount of biofuel be mixed into the country’s fuel supply. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was then expanded in 2007, with separate requirements for standard biofuel on the one hand and cellulosic and advanced biofuels on the other. The latter are produced from non-food products like cornstalks, agricultural waste, and timber industry cuttings.
The RFS originally called for 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2010, 250 million in 2011, and 500 million in 2012. Instead, the cellulosic industry failed to get off the ground. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was forced to revise the mandate down to 6.5 million in 2010, and all the way down to zero in 2012.
The cellulosic mandate has started to slowly creep back up, and 2014 may be the year when domestic production of cellulosic ethanol finally takes off.
But then last month EPA did something else for the first time: it cut down the 2014 mandate for standard biofuel, produced mainly from corn. And now Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) have teamed up on legislation that would eliminate the standard biofuel mandate entirely. The mandates for cellulosic biofuel, biodiesel, and advanced biofuels (the previous two fall under this broader category) would remain.""
Link to Original Source
He's pretty much "been there, done that, actually created the T-shirt".
"Today, Mims works on many scientific projects including climate change research."
To learn whatever's there to learn or to seek evidence to support a previously reached conclusion or opinion?
I forget if you were in PE or R-E or both (and the back issues are in boxes on a high shelf), but I used to enjoy reading your stuff back in the '70s.
I'd be willing to pay for it, but I think Tivo's service fee's are way to expensive. $500 for a lifetime pass, or $15 a month (last time I checked). What are you getting for that?
A license to use the proprietary software they created.
Whether it's worth it is a decision for the individual to make concerning their own situation.
Some decide in favor, some against.
And some of us pick up used lifetimed machines at good prices because they need the hard drive replaced or the power supply cured of "capacitor plague".
140 bucks per month for Dish... I'm really thinking about going to just streaming and getting the Tivo with 4 ota tuners.
There are TiVos with 4 digital cable tuners that can be used simultaneously (provided one also rents a cable card from one's cable company, and possibly a Tuning Adapter as well to enable getting Switched Digital Video), but I'm almost certain there are no models with 4 OTA tuners.
TiVo is kinda moving away from OTA and concentrating on cable these days, and probably looking to get into deals with cable companies to provide hardware/software packages which the cable companies would rent to subscribers, rather than rely on individual TiVo owners for as much of their overall income as previously.
Of course you can always get 2 dual tuner Series 3 or Series 4 TiVos or the low end Series 5.
Much information, from TiVo owners helping each other out, is available here:
Not to be confused with anything on the actual tivo.com site--they have people who monitor TCF, but it is independent of TiVo, Inc.
I put quotes around it because I was pretending that it was GM saying that it's not GM's fault that the federal government was unable to time the market.
In other words, if GM could get away with just laying it out there instead of having to be all diplomatic about it, that's how I envision them answering this ridiculous notion of covering losses the government brought on itself by selling at the wrong time.
If GM has any sort of moral obligation to the government or to show gratitude to the government, it's not in this particular area.
I'm really - I mean really, uncomfortable with the thought of Microsoft planning this kind of thing 12 years in advance...
But I'm comforted by the knowledge that they aren't nearly competent enough to actually have successfully done that.
...Killing the svchost.exe process to shut down Windows Update is the equivalent of paint removal with a 12 gauge shotgun. It'll work, but it causes a lot of other problems at the same time...
But you must admit that sounds like a lot more fun than doing it with a putty knife and a heat gun.
Government is no better than other investors, and often worse. Take Solyndra as an example: private investors basically gave up on it until corruptocrats at DoE decided to funnel cash down that toilet. There's also a conflict of interest when government has a big stock position in certain companies. Given that the US has traditionally not made that kind of investment in private companies, I certainly do hold the government responsible for losing taxpayer dollars there. Do you think private investors are, or should be, off the hook when they make money-losing investments?
If you're going to talk about Solyndra, you really should include mention of China dumping solar cells on the U.S. market below cost as a big part of Solyndra's woes.
And how the federal government didn't really do anymore to prevent that then they did to keep the Japanese from destroying domestic television set production via dumping back in the '70s, despite the government's ability and duty to regulate commerce.
Shares of General Motors Company (GM) hit new 52-week high of $33.77 on May 17, which is above its previous level of $32.44 as well as the Initial Public Offering (:IPO) price of $33.00 (held in Nov 2010) for the first time since May 4, 2011.
The government could have sold then and turned a profit (or at least a capital gain).
They chose to wait and sell after the share price had gone back down again, and to not wait and see if it went back up in the future.
GM had no control over those actions.
I'm sure many others who bought at the IPO have sold their shares at various times since then, and taken the then-going price.
If they did so at a loss, GM doesn't owe them anything, and if they did so at a profit, they don't owe GM anything.
The government did not issue a loan, they bought a large amount of stock.
a) Would they have purchased that stock if it hadn't been a "bailout"?
b) A "loan" would have left them with nothing if the company had tanked. A stock purchase would entitle them to some company assets to sell off, this is what most people call "security".
You don't seem to have as good a grasp as you might about how stock ownership works.
Stockholders are the last in line when it comes to dividing up the assets of a failing company and paying off creditors to the extent possible.
That's the risk of ownership.
Just ask those who were still holding shares in the previous corporation known as General Motors.
Some of those shares were purchased at around $100 per share back in the mid to late '60s when that would have bought 300 gallons of gasoline.
Although they received dividends over the years, those who bought a share at that price and held that share 'til the bitter end lost all $100.
Meanwhile, what assets there were went towards partially paying off all of the creditors in line ahead of those shareholders.
uh that makes no sense at all.
they should have gone bankrupt - or loaned money backed by their assets... having a pool that's kept only to keep failing companies running belongs to the history of the ussr.
Who should have gone bankrupt? General Motors? They did.
Or at least the previously exisiting corporation known as General Motors did. And the value of the shares of stock in that corporation fell to $0, and that corporation doesn't really exist any more.
A new corporation also known as General Motors came into being, and issued stock, and it is some of that stock which the federal government purchased and then chose to sell for less than what they paid.
He didn't take the money, Treasury chose to invest the money under direction of both the Bush and Obama administrations, in order to keep GM and its supply chain from collapsing. While they lost money on the face of it, the economy gained value, likely in excess of the $10B loss. If the end result exceeds the scenario where government did nothing, then government did it's job by stabilizing the economy.
This isn't personal. His job is to protect shareholder value. He indicated, in the interview, that if he paid back the $10B loss he would be opening GM up to lawsuits from every other shareholder who lost money in the bankruptcy.
The shareholders who lost money in the bankruptcy were those who held the previous shares, the ones from GM's first Initial Public Offering from back in the early 20th century, or shares issued subsequently, but before the bankruptcy.
Technically, the corporation of which those shares were shares no longer exists.
And those who bought bonds issued by that previous corporation have a much more legitimate gripe than the government.
GM would be facing suits by others who bought the same shares the government did, the shares issued after the bankruptcy.
The federal government brought the loss on themselves by first buying some of those shares and then holding them until they went down in value and then selling at a loss instead of continuing to hold them in the hope that they would go back up again.
Those shares have done what stock sometimes does, declined in value relative to the IPO price.
In the future they may go down even further or they may go up again.
That's the risk of capitalism.