backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by StevoLincolnit.. on Jul 8 at 1:44 AM


  (Source: renewablepowernews.com)
Renewable energy production in the United States has increased by a little over 15 percent since the first quarter of 2010, which puts it ahead of nuclear energy production and closer to surpassing domestic oil production

A new report published by the Energy Information Administration has found that renewable energy production in the United States has increased by a little over 15 percent since the first quarter of 2010, which puts it ahead of nuclear energy production and closer to surpassing domestic oil production.

According to the Energy Information Administration's most recent Monthly Energy Review, renewable energy sources such as biomass/biofuels, hydropower, wind, solar and geothermal have accounted for 11.73 percent of U.S. energy production during the first three months of 2011. This equates to 2.245 quadrillion BTUs of energy. Of this total, biomass/biofuels accounted for 48 percent, hydropower was 35.41 percent, wind was 12.87 percent, geothermal was 2.45 percent and solar was 1.16 percent. 

Since the first quarter of 2010, renewable energy production has increased by a little over 15 percent, and has increased by more than 25 percent when compared to the first quarter of 2009. As far as individual forms of renewable energy go, solar power has increased by 104.8 percent when compared to the first quarter last year while wind increased by 40.3 percent, hydropower increased by 28.7 percent and geothermal increased by 5.8 percent.

The Monthly Energy Review reported that renewable energy production beat nuclear energy power by 5.65 percent, and that "energy produced from renewables is 77.15 percent of that from domestic crude oil production." Nuclear power experienced a minimal increase, but has mainly stayed steady.

Renewable energy's rise to second place is not all that surprising, considering Japan's nuclear crisis after the 9.0-magnitude earthquake has filled many people with a fear of nuclear power. For instance, U.S. senators insisted that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission repeat a costly inspection of nuclear power back in March.

"Notwithstanding the recent nuclear accident in Japan, among many others, and the rapid growth in energy and electricity from renewable sources, congressional Republicans continue to press for more nuclear energy funding while seeking deep cuts in renewable energy investments," said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. "One has to wonder, 'what are these people thinking?'"





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It's a shame...
By CrazyBernie on 7/6/2011 10:43:36 AM , Rating: 5
... that renewable energy is nowhere near as efficient as nuclear. Silly wabbits.




RE: It's a shame...
By FITCamaro on 7/6/2011 10:55:01 AM , Rating: 5
And that we're helping pay for it.


RE: It's a shame...
By WestleyTDPR on 7/6/2011 1:06:20 PM , Rating: 3
Dunno why they voted you down, we are paying extra for it and the only advantage is in the pockets of the con merchants putting up the wind farms. I'm not scared of terrorists as much as fear mongering and ignorance.


RE: It's a shame...
By FITCamaro on 7/6/2011 1:46:55 PM , Rating: 3
Because the pro-renewable energy crowd is mostly nothing but those who will financially gain from it and ignorant morons who think that coal and nuclear are evil.

If someone wants to use solar or wind power, fine. Just do it on your dime. Having to provide massive subsidies in the form of gigantic tax credits in order to make it somewhat affordable where it might not even make sense is ridiculous.

If I could afford it, I'd consider putting solar panels on my home. Over 80% of the year, its bright and sunny here in Charleston. So it'd probably pay off in the long term. But I'd do it on my dime.


RE: It's a shame...
By DrApop on 7/6/2011 3:36:27 PM , Rating: 5
@FitC - It is so very, very unfortunate people like you have their blinders on all the time and easily forget all the subsidies that have gone into nuclear and coal. This is especially true of nuclear....back when it was so very, very costly to produce. (and I am a nuclear supporter)

People tend to be completely short-sighted, never seeing the benefits/reduced costs in the future.

As unfortunate as it is in our supposed free market economy - nothing gets done without our government sponsoring it.

We wouldn't have jet planes, GPS, cellphones, the internet, computers, and many many other things if it were not for government driven market forces.


RE: It's a shame...
By log on 7/6/2011 3:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well said!


RE: It's a shame...
By mkrech on 7/6/2011 4:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
Your position is simply not true.

Also, make a valid argument that use actual facts.

Saying that these developments would not have happened without government support holds no more merit than if I were to argue that we do not have personal air transportation, AI robotic assistants, and home based fusion power plants because of the capital lost to government subsidies.


RE: It's a shame...
By Starcub on 7/7/2011 4:20:59 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry bud, but it's always been that way. Technology gets it start from the empire builders and eventually finds its way into industry. It's a nice cozy relationship that exists between govt. and industry. This is especially true concerning energy. Moreover, as a base commodity, energy has always been heavily subsidized in all its forms. Even though nuclear's heyday was in the 60's and R&D hasn't seen much advancement since then, last I checked about 5 years ago nuclear was still being subsidized roughly equivalently to clean renewables.


RE: It's a shame...
By Nutzo on 7/6/2011 11:05:48 AM , Rating: 3
I'd like to see the breakdown between solar/wind/hydropower/etc.

I'd bet you would find most the power is coming from hydropower (i.e. dams), and most the increase is due to the huge snowpack out west finally starting melting.

Hydropower is actually cheaper than nuclear, but since the environmentalist won;t allow dams to be built any more....


RE: It's a shame...
By MrTeal on 7/6/2011 11:13:08 AM , Rating: 3
Ummm...
quote:
According to the Energy Information Administration's most recent Monthly Energy Review, renewable energy sources such as biomass/biofuels, hydropower, wind, solar and geothermal have accounted for 11.73 percent of U.S. energy production during the first three months of 2011. This equates to 2.245 quadrillion BTUs of energy. Of this total, biomass/biofuels accounted for 48 percent, hydropower was 35.41 percent, wind was 12.87 percent, geothermal was 2.45 percent and solar was 1.16 percent.


RE: It's a shame...
By Shig on 7/6/2011 11:18:52 AM , Rating: 5
All the best hydro power spots are already taken. Many of the 'good' remaining sites are small / medium in size and have 100 miles of red tape.

Geothermal is the renewable resource that has to be getting more incentives. It's baseload 24/7 and never runs out with far less maintenence than a nuclear plant.

I'd also like to see concentrating solar get bonus incentives when molten salt is used. Molten salt acts as a cheap battery and can enable a solar plant to generate power 24/7.


RE: It's a shame...
By StevoLincolnite on 7/6/2011 12:00:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Geothermal is the renewable resource that has to be getting more incentives. It's baseload 24/7 and never runs out with far less maintenence than a nuclear plant.


Agreed.

Plus Geothermal is cheap to expand, just drill another hole in the ground.

I've always been a bit weary of Nuclear Power, not so much the plants though... More of the waste.
The French re-process theirs and turn it into more fuel.

Other countries however dump it under ground in containers which after a hundred to a thousand years may leak and contaminate the ground water.

Hell, some other countries just transport it to 3rd world countries like Africa and dump it, leaving them to deal with the problem.

Then you have the impact that mining for Uranium has which is pretty substantial (Just like Coal).

Nuclear might provide clean power, but acquiring the fuel and dealing with the waste is anything but clean.


RE: It's a shame...
By The0ne on 7/6/2011 1:58:22 PM , Rating: 4
Geothermal is up and coming but there are/will be environmental issues once people know more about it and it gets more media attention. There's life down there you know. Studies I have followed for years now that have found life where you would think there weren't any. Life living in rocks with nothing else around.

I'll be interesting how this plays out really. Right now, there's not attention to it.


RE: It's a shame...
By homerdog on 7/6/2011 6:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt even PETA would raise a stink over the bacteria living in underground rocks.


RE: It's a shame...
By TeXWiller on 7/6/2011 5:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus Geothermal is cheap to expand, just drill another hole in the ground.
Sometimes a simple hole can be expensive. The Russians finalized their Soviet-era debt to my country with a single research hole of a few kilometers deep. An affordable deep drilling technology needs to be developed and most importantly adopted for those cheap middle of a tectonic plate holes.


RE: It's a shame...
By StevoLincolnite on 7/8/2011 1:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sometimes a simple hole can be expensive.


Not as expensive as building another plant though.


RE: It's a shame...
By Solandri on 7/6/2011 2:37:11 PM , Rating: 5
Also note that this is total energy use, not just electricity. Nuclear's electricity generation has actually been going up - more so than wind and solar in the last 10 years. It's just that biofuel use in cars has been going up more.

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1....


RE: It's a shame...
By knutjb on 7/6/2011 2:54:53 PM , Rating: 3
To add to that the Pacific Northwest has a bumper crop of hydropower this year. So much power has been generated the windmills and other sources in Washington had to be shutdown/idled. The rivers in my area are still swollen months longer than normal.

This info is skewed and the dailytech source article link is short on details. When their links for for biofuels lead to ethanol, heavily subsidized and dictated by the government, and the biomass link returns to the same article...

Solandri's link shows the skewing. The main dt article is weak at best...


RE: It's a shame...
By Samus on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: It's a shame...
By kattanna on 7/6/2011 11:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a shame...


aye.. i agree, this is a shame.. that the article is so wrong

biofuels are a liquid gas, AKA ethonal, used in cars.. nuclear is for generating electricity.

you cannot compare the 2

really tiff?? you need to stop posting such obvious garbage


RE: It's a shame...
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 1:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
This article is really misleading... it mixes bio-fuels, electric production which are used for different things. Even if we had a limitless supply of electricity tomorrow we would still need liquid fuels to drive cars/planes/trains/ships etc.

If you're going to bring up nuclear power you should be looking a electical production numbers in which case nuclear accounts for more than twice what hydro and renewables produce combined.

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.ht...


RE: It's a shame...
By spread on 7/6/2011 1:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
The more you buy the more efficient it becomes. R&D costs money.


They're thinking:
By Manch on 7/6/2011 10:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is a better technology, clean, cheaper.




RE: They're thinking:
By izmanq on 7/6/2011 11:12:58 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not so sure :| Look what happened to japan, and if i'm not mistaken nuclear waste from nuclear power plant will remain radio active for thousands even millions of year :|

Perhaps could be used for temporary power source until we have better power source, but still i think it's quite risky.


RE: They're thinking:
By someguy123 on 7/6/2011 11:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
Japan's problem was poor safety measures. When you're building on a tsunami zone the last thing you'd want to do is overlook redundant safety measures to save money.

Plus, the alternative is constant levels of radiation, versus the low chance of meltdown with correct precautions. Renewable energy is a good goal, but nowhere near effective enough to provide enough power compared to conventional methods and nuclear.


RE: They're thinking:
By The0ne on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: They're thinking:
By EBH on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: They're thinking:
By Steve1981 on 7/6/2011 2:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want to the the nuke fanboy excuse when the next plant fails.


If/when another plant catastrophically fails, I'd wager human error will be a significant factor. In any case, unless you have the ability to turn rainbows into massive amounts of electricity, I'd suggest your energies are better spent hoping we learn from our mistakes rather than waiting for a plant to fail so you can demand answers.


RE: They're thinking:
By FITCamaro on 7/6/2011 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
The Japanese plant was 50 years old and due to be decommissioned later this year. Modern plants wouldn't have what happened there happened. It was also just a timing of very specific events that allowed it to happen at all.

Also the quake that caused the tidal wave in Japan was OFF THE COAST of Japan. The quake didn't really damage the plant. It was tidal wave that caused what happened to happen. A quake in California does not cause a tidal wave. So the quake itself, short of making the plant literally fall into it and explode (probably still a 1/1,000,000 chance even if the plant did collapse into a hole), isn't going to cause the kind of event that happened in Japan.


RE: They're thinking:
By The0ne on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: They're thinking:
By someguy123 on 7/6/2011 4:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why you have redundancy. Multiple, tiered, redundant safety measures are technologically available to us and reduce the chance of human error. You're making the mistake in assuming that people deem nuclear safe based on trust in humanity. Nuclear is safe because technology can take control away from error prone humans.

The cost of building a plant is incredible, but so is the sheer power generated. Nuclear plants eventually end up costing less than constant maintenance of coal or renewable thanks to the power it generates. If you're worried about people dying, why continue using energy sources that actively kill more people than nuclear?


RE: They're thinking:
By Zoomer on 7/6/2011 11:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
The earthquake did not damage the plant at all. That is a known fact.

In fact, if you were to read WSJ's recent report, the reactor in question is one of the first to be built in Japan, and they relied a ton on GE to do it. The containment structure for the first was too small; workers reported that it was a pain to do maintenance in it.
Several others were built at Fukushima I, and the newer ones all achieved cold shutdown. These had their backup generator inside the containment building.

What we should be doing now is to encourage, not discourage, new designs to be brought online. An earlier poster mentioned that the reactor was due to be decommissioned. In fact, it was due to be taken offline a decade ago, but they applied for and received an extension. It was given another 10 year extension starting from this year on. If the second extension had not gone through/been necessary, the reactor would have been safely shutdown when the quake happened.


RE: They're thinking:
By The0ne on 7/7/2011 4:53:50 AM , Rating: 2
I see you guys missed the point entirely, most likely on purpose. I'll try again.

When nature of destructive magnitude comes along it doesn't matter how many preventive implementations you and everyone has thought about. You can't expect to plan for everything when first you don't how much damage it'll eventually cause. Yes, you can do the best you can but assuming this will solve everything is not funny. It's like telling me because the buildings are design with earthquakes in mind they won't fall. Yea, sure.

I'm not against nuclear lol. I agree that we should learn from this and move forward as best as we can. And yes, there are human errors. You just don't want to believe it. I'll give you a sad example from one of my jobs. We produced actuators for Boeing and Nasa. We produced shtty motors for them. We gave them a "nice" tour of the facility and showed them how well we made them. We charged through the roof for each. I refused to heat the actuator to have the parts inside "fit" and then nitrogen cool it. I resigned immediately after objecting and knowing they want me to sign off on each one. Sometimes cheap really does come cheap.

You've actually highlighted one of the problems with nuclear plants, extensions. This should be a big concern but since they're not being reported on not many people know. Old nuclear plants, with most having the inability to maintain it, apply and successfully granted extensions. I call it a buy-off. If you seriously think about it, extensions don't make sense in a good way at all.

Yes, we should move forward with nuclear as we need it for the growing population. But realize that it really does only take that 1/1,000,000 to cause a 20k+ year of dead zone. Do I have trust in contractors building new plants...not at this moment no, not with all the problems with nuclear plants that can't even get going due to cost.


RE: They're thinking:
By someguy123 on 7/7/2011 8:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody missed the point. You're completely ignoring the fact that other sources actively kill and destroy, yet for some reason the mere possibility of nuclear destroying something appears to be taboo to you.

Coal pollutes regardless of natural disasters, and in the event of a disaster will also succumb, as will even renewable sources (especially large scale dams if they were to ever collapse). You can either go with the option that reduces death, or fear a summer blockbuster movie-like holocaust while people die regardless and while we spend all of our money for substantially less power.


RE: They're thinking:
By someguy123 on 7/6/2011 3:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Except the fact that, you know, that plant was very old, near a tsunami zone, with high probability of tsunami known to the staff, yet they ignored it and maintained the system as it was.

At the same time, look at the deathtoll of conventional methods. How many people have died or are facing life threatening radiation issues due to Chernobyl? Nuclear kills the least amount of people per watt generated, even when compared to renewable energy.

Movies are not meant to be taken as fact.


RE: They're thinking:
By spread on 7/6/2011 6:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly Nuclear Bad. Coal good.

When was the last time coal gave people asthma and killed children? When was the last time coal plants polluted the environment with mercury and toxic coal sludge?

I don't remember therefore it doesn't exist! Yay!


RE: They're thinking:
By Solandri on 7/6/2011 3:19:55 PM , Rating: 3
Number of people killed by nuclear plant radiation since March: 0
Number of people killed by wind turbines since March: 1
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/state/ohio-teen-d...

The danger of nuclear is greatly exaggerated by the types of stories which garner the attention of the media. Nuclear's incidents are very rare but big. Like plane crashes, when a nuclear accident happens, it makes big news. Accidents with wind and solar OTOH are distributed and small, and compounded by the fact that these two sources simply don't generate much electricity yet.

If you scale wind and solar's power generation rate up to match the current output of nuclear, you find that they:

- Kill a lot more people than nuclear. http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm

- Require a lot more resources than nuclear. The amount of nuclear waste generated to power a typical U.S. home for 30 years is about 2.5 tablespoons. And the nuclear plant requires about the third the tonnage of metal, concrete, and panel weight of solar or wind to do it. The total amount of nuclear waste generated by the U.S. annually is about two tractor trailers worth. That's why we've been able to do without a permanent storage solution for 60 years - there's so little of it generated the plants are just storing it on site while the politicians spend decades bickering.

- Put a lot more land area off-limits than nuclear. To match the typical 1.5 GW power output @ 90% capacity factor of a U.S. nuclear plant, you need about 60 km^2 of solar PV panels or reflectors, or about 7000 1 MW wind turbines occupying over 1000 km^2. France and Germany require 500 and 600 m exclusion zones around each turbine to protect people against blade failures and ice throws. If you applied that to a wind farm matching Fukushima's power output, it would permanently put off-limits a land area several times larger than the current evacuation zone.

I am all for wind and (in the appropriate areas) solar. They are much, much better than fossil fuels. But nuclear, even with its downsides, is much better than wind and solar. You just have to compare nuclear against other existing technologies, not against a mythical power source which is 100% safe and has zero problems. And you have to compare to equivalent power generation levels, not against a single wind turbine or one house's rooftop solar installation


RE: They're thinking:
By Zoomer on 7/6/2011 11:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
If the fuel was recycled (yes, reprocessed), there wouldn't be much waste anyway.

Blame the DoD for pushing designs that can produce plutonium. Freaking cold war crap.


RE: They're thinking:
By Gary Oak on 7/6/2011 3:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
... did you really just say fukushima is worse then Chernobyl?


Electricity Production Mix. A Comparison...
By log on 7/6/2011 5:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
Out of curiosity, I went to check my electricity bill to see how this would fare from where I live. The bill clearly states the mix of produced electricity, by source. For a better comparison I checked table 7.2b - Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector from EIA, which seems to be the most directly comparable.

for the sake of globalization, I decided to share with you the results from the February readings:

US/PORTUGAL
FOSSIL FUELS 65,9%/26,6%
of which (from total)
Coal 45,5%/ 10,5%
Oil+other gases negligible/ 1,3%
Natural Gas 19,6%/ 14,8%

NUCLEAR 21,5%/3,2% (we don't produce nuclear electricity, but we import electricity produced this way)

RENEWABLES 12,6%/70,2%
of which (from total)
HYDRO (pumped+conventional) 7,9%/17,0%
Biomass negligible/ 13,7%
Geothermal + PV negligible/ 4,4%
wind 3,4%/ 35,1%

"negligibles" account for 1.9% of electricity produced.

Renewable energy IS expensive, but is partially compensated for what we don't pay for carbon emitting licences, and imports of coal, natural gas and oil.

I leave it to you for any additional readings of what these numbers may mean...

Local electricity cost is €0,1326/kWh on single tariff, or €01448/kWh + €0,0778/kWh on dual tariff. I'm sure US tariffs are cheaper.




RE: Electricity Production Mix. A Comparison...
By Solandri on 7/6/2011 10:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
Do note that Portugal and coastal Spain are blessed by consistent and strong trade winds. Very few countries are similarly blessed. I'd say Iceland (nearly 100% geothermal) is about the only one. Canada comes close with hydro, but that's mostly due to its small population relative to land area.

The U.S. is a heavy user of coal because it's basically the Saudi Arabia of coal.


By log on 7/7/2011 5:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course. It's obvious a relation of natural resources availability, historical technological development, etc.

The amount of fossil fuels around is virtually inexistent. When this renewable energy wave started, its lobby and a political decision to reduce exposure to imported fuels meant a rapid increase based on renewable energy. There's lots of good things about it, but indeed it's expensive!

I'm sure if there were fossil fuels in the ground, the mix would also be different.


The problem...
By Motoman on 7/6/2011 10:52:19 AM , Rating: 3
...is that while many will try to spin this as some kind of validation of renewable energy, what it really says is that the US is vastly too dependent on coal and gas/oil for energy production, and is too far behind on nuclear.

Those renewables aren't going to support modern western civilization, if you took away the coal and gas/oil. We need to ditch coal/gas/oil and go nuclear. Let the hippies have an occasional windfarm if they want...




By troysavary on 7/6/2011 1:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
These projects take years to build, and in the case of nuclear, decades to clear the red tape before they even get started. The disaster in Japan has absolutely nothing to do with the current ratio of power generation in the USA.

Tiffany needs to stop writing articles.




By TacticalTrading on 7/6/2011 5:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This equates to 2.245 quadrillion BTUs of energy. Of this total, biomass/biofuels accounted for 48 percent, hydropower was 35.41 percent, wind was 12.87 percent, geothermal was 2.45 percent and solar was 1.16 percent.

Sounds great.... Right?

Of the total Renewable energy, 21.6% is from ... Wood!
Of the Biomass/Biofuels component, 45.6% is ... Wood!
Note: Wood doesn't renew very quickly, though it does renew as long as you don't cut down all the trees.

First 3-Months of 2011 vs. 2010:
Hydro Electric (production & Consumption) is up 28.6%
Ethanol (consumption) is up 5.7%

Total Biomass/Biofuel consumption is up only 1.35% because of a 2.4% drop in wood Production/consumption...
Go figure...

The bulk of the Renewable increase is Hydropower, which as someone mentioned, is likely attributable to the massive snow melt going on.

Also notice the article focuses on Production. According to the stats, Biofuels (read: Ethanol) figures lose about 6.7% from the Production column to the Consumption side.

Source: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/me...
Page 149




Kinda Sad...
By NicodemusMM on 7/6/2011 8:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
I would have thought that with all of the money that has been thrown at solar that it would be more than 1.16 percent. I'd love to see a breakdown that details the cost/kWh without subsidies, etc. Not the cost to the customer... the cost of production.

The U.S. hasn't built a new nuclear facility in 30ish years and it has taken this long for renewable to catch up. This combined with the pitiful 1.16% (among other reasons) is why nuclear fission has, is and will be the most reliable, economical and ecologically sound source of energy until fusion reactors can produce more energy than they consume.

~ Nicodemus




Major errors in the article
By 91TTZ on 7/6/2011 12:27:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But not everyone is against the use of clean and affordable nuclear power.

"Notwithstanding the recent nuclear accident in Japan, among many others, and the rapid growth in energy and electricity from renewable sources, congressional Republicans continue to press for more nuclear energy funding while seeking deep cuts in renewable energy investments," said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. "One has to wonder, 'what are these people thinking?'"


Huh? You just said that not everyone is against nuclear power, and to support that argument you show a quote from a guy who IS AGAINST nuclear power?




Slow news day
By JimboK29 on 7/6/2011 1:00:06 PM , Rating: 1
After reading stuff like this I wonder why I still visit this site.




Vote Republican!
By Pirks on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: Vote Republican!
By cjohnson2136 on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: Vote Republican!
By Kurz on 7/6/2011 11:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yes... Continue the sensless class warfare.
Those people earned their riches YOU have no right over their property.


RE: Vote Republican!
By cjohnson2136 on 7/6/2011 11:56:18 AM , Rating: 1
I think what I said I wrote I meant to refer more to the business tax. Now while I think the rich people should still pay an equal percentage of tax that middle and poor people do. I don't think its right that business can poor millions of dollars into lobbyists and pad the donations of politicians AND then find loop holes in taxes.


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 1:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now while I think the rich people should still pay an equal percentage of tax that middle and poor people do.


This is almost comical. You do realize that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay almost nothing in taxes right? Someone who makes 20K a year will get a large portion of their taxes back as a tax return the following year, plus this person likely will qualify for food stamps putting them at a slightly negative tax burden when you figure that the rest of the tax paying public is paying for their food... and if they have a child or two the 5 Grand in child tax credits will make them a massively negative tax payer. Quit complaining that the people that actually make enough to get charged something aren't paying their share when the poor pay nothing and collect everything. If anything we need taxes raised at the bottom so that the poor will have a dog in the fight and quit voting in more of this class warfare nonsense.


RE: Vote Republican!
By sigmatau on 7/6/2011 1:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
Total BS!

Do you make $20k? Or are you just talking out your rear? If you make $20k you get a couple of hundred dollars back, not a "large portion."

"bottom 50% of wage earners pay almost nothing in taxes right"

So what? How does this matter when the bottom 50% hold less than 5% of the US's wealth while the top 5% hold 85% of it? If you are using pure mathematics, then the rich should pay more!

Then we have huge corporations with huge profits that pay no taxes (GE) or that we heavily subsidize (Big Oil). This is fair, yet we must raise taxes on the poor?

Talk about bizzaro world.


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 5:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you make $20k? Or are you just talking out your rear? If you make $20k you get a couple of hundred dollars back, not a "large portion."


not any more, I used to though.

Why don't you do some searching, or perhaps get a job and actually work through a year before you start spouting this BS?

http://www.calcxml.com/do/inc02

$20K gross income -> $680 tax liability -> 3% tax rate
$50K gross income -> $5325 tax liability -> 10.6% tax rate
$80K gross income -> $12825 tax liability -> 16% tax rate
$110K gross income -> $20721 tax liability -> 18.8% tax rate

Tell me why the feds should get 18.8 cents on every dollar that someone making $110K brings in while the poor down at $20K collect on assistance programs and complain that they have the "unfair" tax rate of 1/15th of those at the top?

Oh yes and those evil corporations like GE (in bed with the Obama Administration) or did GE's propaganda arm MSNBC forget to mention that while you were memorizing your talking points?

Just as an FYI since you seem to have missed ECO 101 corporations do not "pay taxes" they factor the taxes into their operating expenses and adjust the prices of their products accordingly so if you hit the oil industry with $100B in taxes then you will see an increase in the costs of their products. Also if you single one out like Exxon for instance since they seem to be the lefts favorite boogey man, and you cut into their profits and they are unable to compensate with higher prices then all the retirees with Exxon stock in their 401K/portfolio will get hurt due to falling stock prices and/or reduced dividends.


RE: Vote Republican!
By sigmatau on 7/6/2011 6:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
Your numbers are fudged. Good try!

Double the amount for $20k and you will be closer.

I think you still should take an elementary math class, it may help you out. Even going by your wrong numbers, the person making $20k, still only has $19k to live on while the person making $110k still only has $90k to live on. Wow, what a burden for the person making $110k to only be able to live on $90k. Dear God no!

So you are saying it is fair for the person making $20k to pay almost $4k in taxes, the same rate as someone making $110k, and that would be fair? What about someone making $10k a year? You need to jack them for $2k to make their life more miserable?

I love how you skipped the fact that the top 5% have 85% of America's wealth, while the 50%, that according to you are not paying their fair share, hold only 5% of the wealth. I guess that doesn't count.


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 6:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
those numbers are federal income tax, what the state, FICA, and medicare do beyond that was not brought into the equation.

quote:
Even going by your wrong numbers, the person making $20k, still only has $19k to live on while the person making $110k still only has $90k to live on. Wow, what a burden for the person making $110k to only be able to live on $90k. Dear God no!


Its not about what they take home someone making, it's about the percentage of a persons income that is confiscated by the government. The progressive income tax penalizes success. The most "fair" tax scheme would be either a flat or consumption based taxing system.

quote:
I love how you skipped the fact that the top 5% have 85% of America's wealth, while the 50%, that according to you are not paying their fair share, hold only 5% of the wealth. I guess that doesn't count.


you act like the rich got that way via the lottery or something, the vast majority of them got that way by working for it. Its THEIR money because of THINGS THEY DID or RISKS THEY TOOK.

Equality of opportunity NOT outcome is what we should be striving for.


RE: Vote Republican!
By maven81 on 7/6/2011 9:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Its not about what they take home someone making, it's about the percentage of a persons income that is confiscated by the government. The progressive income tax penalizes success. The most "fair" tax scheme would be either a flat or consumption based taxing system."

This is gibberish. If you're going to call that the government confiscating income I'm going to call tax cuts the government gifting money to the super rich.

"you act like the rich got that way via the lottery or something, the vast majority of them got that way by working for it. Its THEIR money because of THINGS THEY DID or RISKS THEY TOOK."

You mean like the clowns on wallstreet that risked and took OUR money? That WE had to bail out? What a joke.


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 11:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is gibberish. If you're going to call that the government confiscating income I'm going to call tax cuts the government gifting money to the super rich.


Here's the problem with your entire philosophy. You have no belief in the right of individuals to posess property, you seem to think as evidenced by your statements that all property is owned by the state and the government allows by its good graces, us to keep what we have.

This is backwards, the government's property belongs to the people, the people have what is personally theirs, NO ONE has the right to take any of it. Not you, not the states, not the feds, no one, it is their property. Taxes are paid because the State has the consent of the governed and they give up a portion of their wealth in order to fund some common goals with the rest of the people in the country.

We do not get our rights from the government, the government exists to protect the rights we already have. So no, it is not a "gift" the government "gives" to cut taxes, it is the government learning to accomplish its given task with less of the peoples resources. Your mentality is the one that enables elitists to impose tyranny over the common man, they work for us, not the other way around, lose sight of that and you have consigned yourself to slavery.


RE: Vote Republican!
By maven81 on 7/7/2011 10:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try mr libertarian, but the problem here is a bit more complex then you make it out. The government doesn't pull the tax rates out of thin air, it estimates them based on it's needs. These estimates appear to be for the most part correct, since it's very rare for it to have a budget surplus, and usually it has a budget deficit. Of course whether you agree what they spend the money on is a different matter. Personally I'd love for them to get the hell out of Afghanistan for example, but it is what it is. You're supposed to change that through elections.

The bottom line then is that what we have here is a business deal. Say I'm the government and you're a large business owner. You ask that I maintain the infrastructure that your trucks use to ship goods, negotiate trading policies, make sure the competition doesn't create a monopoly etc etc. I ask that you pay 35% in taxes, for doing that and other things. If you care about this country you accept for example that some of the money will be spent on things that don't necessarily benefit your business directly (like say give out grants). That's the system we have.

Now say you decide that as a business owner you don't give a damn about a lot of the stuff I spend money on. You're just concerned about keeping your profits. You lobby the politicians to lower your taxes, saying how difficult things are for you, you promise that if they do this everyone else will benefit. You'll lower prices on your goods for example, and similar BS.
Now the government has a revenue problem. It did not collect as much money as it needs to operate. It can either print money, borrow money, or cut it's spending on something. You take your savings that you're so proud of because you feel the government has no right to your money anyway, and give yourself a healthy bonus. You send it overseas, after-all the stupid government never deserved it anyway right? Etc etc. Meanwhile, thanks to the deficit you helped create the government cuts the space program, infrastructure spending, benefits to military veterans etc etc. It borrows money from China, AND prints some more, devaluing our currency.

So how exactly does your stupid greed benefit the average citizen? Just come out and say it, your policy is nothing but "I have mine, to hell with everyone else".


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/7/2011 11:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the government has a revenue problem. It did not collect as much money as it needs to operate. It can either print money, borrow money, or cut it's spending on something. You take your savings that you're so proud of because you feel the government has no right to your money anyway, and give yourself a healthy bonus. You send it overseas, after-all the stupid government never deserved it anyway right?


The government does not have a revenue problem it has a spending problem. It goes from a huge deficit of 500ish Billion a year under Bush to 1.6 trillion under Obama and we're all just supposed to say "Hey you guys in washington just go and spend as much as you like and use us in the private sector as your piggy bank!"? Get a clue man, the government is not here to help you.

quote:
So how exactly does your stupid greed benefit the average citizen? Just come out and say it, your policy is nothing but "I have mine, to hell with everyone else".


More hive mentality, hand all the power to our benefactors in government crap. What any individual or group of individuals does with assets they acquired within the confines of the law is their business. They should be free to do with it whatever they like, wheather it helps others or not. Its a benefit of owning the property.

quote:
Meanwhile, thanks to the deficit you helped create the government cuts the space program, infrastructure spending, benefits to military veterans etc etc. It borrows money from China, AND prints some more, devaluing our currency.


The private sector is not to blame for the deficit, the people in government spending the money are. There are a few things spelled out in the preamble of the constitution that the government is supposed to do, anything beyond that is extra and should be put on the chopping block long before we reach a deficit of 1.6 Trillion dollars.

So I suppose since you're such a fan of your government masters and wish to forfeit so much money to them so that they can spend it so graciously in their infinite wisdom that you pay extra taxes every year? Or perhaps you run a charity that uses its money to help fund your favorite governemnt program? Or maybe you're just another spend and tax someone else leftist who has no idea what it means to actually work for something.


RE: Vote Republican!
By maven81 on 7/7/2011 12:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
"The government does not have a revenue problem it has a spending problem."

Ah yes, ye olde Obama tripled the deficit talking point. One that chooses to ignore that The 2009 fiscal year actually began October 1, 2008, which is nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was pretty much set in place while Bush was in the White House.

But that's not even the point. You're trying to pretend that the deficit is purely a result of spending. There were two wars sure (which are a whole other issue), but aside from that we have bailouts, and tax cuts. So essentially you're simultaneously arguing that the government should cut taxes, and then whining that they increased the deficit because of those tax cuts. That's dishonest and stupid.

"Get a clue man, the government is not here to help you."

Funny, that's not what the banks said when they needed the government to bail them out!

"What any individual or group of individuals does with assets they acquired within the confines of the law is their business."

I love that bit you added about the confines of the law, when it's obvious that they just get politicians to rewrite the laws they find inconvenient. But all you did was confirm that your policy is me me and screw everyone else. You don't even deny it.

"So I suppose since you're such a fan of your government masters and wish to forfeit so much money to them so that they can spend it so graciously in their infinite wisdom that you pay extra taxes every year?"

Nice, and I suppose that you mr big bad government will decline to receive social security payments and will refuse any kinds of benefits not specifically listed in the constitution such as unemployment and student financial aid, and so on right? I'm not the hypocrite, you are.


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/7/2011 12:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah yes, ye olde Obama tripled the deficit talking point. One that chooses to ignore that The 2009 fiscal year actually began October 1, 2008, which is nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was pretty much set in place while Bush was in the White House.


Just so you know, Obama has been in office for 2 years now, your arguement might work if the deficit had drastically fallen in 2010, or even in 2011.

quote:
But that's not even the point. You're trying to pretend that the deficit is purely a result of spending. There were two wars sure (which are a whole other issue), but aside from that we have bailouts, and tax cuts.


when is a deficit not the result of spending? They knew before the fiscal year started that the deficit was going to be massive, they PLANNED to SPEND much more than the revenues would be.

quote:
all you did was confirm that your policy is me me and screw everyone else. You don't even deny it.


My policy is liberty, liberty, liberty, everyone should fend for themselves. I would rather be free to stand or fall on my own merit than suck the government teat.

quote:
Nice, and I suppose that you mr big bad government will decline to receive social security payments and will refuse any kinds of benefits not specifically listed in the constitution such as unemployment and student financial aid, and so on right? I'm not the hypocrite, you are.


I wont have to deny SSI payments, the system will be so upside down by the time I'm old enough to collect that it will not be functioning any more. Never been on unemployment, but not opposed to the program if its used for short periods of time, My student loans were un-subsidized I got no grants, I refused to go on food stamps even when I did qualify for them. Whats your point?


RE: Vote Republican!
By maven81 on 7/6/2011 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't you forgetting one teensy little fact? It's the people at the middle and the bottom that drive the economy. The money they get gets spent. On the other hand the people at the top tend to hoard their cash. (I'm not talking about people like Gates and Buffet here). It should be obvious to anyone who's not an idiot that trickle down economics doesn't work. But no, let's create a revenue problem, by asking those people at the top to pay the lowest tax rates EVER so that the pols freak out and start saying that we need to cut everything for the rest of us.


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 5:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
It should also be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of history that spread the wealth socialistic redistrobutionist policies are unsustainable and eventually lead to massive poverty bankrupt nations. The poor do not create jobs they need jobs, if someone lacks the resources to get a business off the ground they will be incapible of creating any jobs.


RE: Vote Republican!
By maven81 on 7/6/2011 9:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is a total straw man argument. No one is talking about socialism here. Even going back to the tax rates of the early 90s would fix a lot of our problems. Are you seriously going to argue that the US in the 90s was socialistic? How about the US of the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s?


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/7/2011 11:10:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
going back to the spending levels of the early 90s would fix a lot of our problems.


there fixed that for you.


RE: Vote Republican!
By nolisi on 7/6/2011 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those people earned their riches YOU have no right over their property.


I'd like suggest that a lot of people like Donald Trump simply inherited their wealth and social/class status. Many with wealth didn't work for it.

It's easy to "create" wealth when you have plenty of it to throw around. And if you have the right last name to back it up, you have plenty of easy opportunites sitting behind your oak desk signing contracts. This is much different than the person raised in a slum having to work his way through life.

Does this give him rights over the rich person's property? Perhaps not, but our system created historical imbalance through slavery, racism, etc, often established and maintained by the rich. I don't have a good solution to balance the system- but we're not hurting rich people through taxation, not when compared to racism and slavery.

Let's also not forget that many business owners (i.e., the rich) today still take advantage of illegal labor to earn fortunes- and when they give these jobs to illiegal immigrants, they take jobs from Americans... so let's not pretend that increased taxes on the rich is a bad thing.


RE: Vote Republican!
By Kurz on 7/6/2011 2:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is you are hurting yourselves by taxing the rich. They are the prime investors, Business starters, They also donate much more than the average joe (Regardless of Personal Reasons). Ask yourself We have the highest corporate taxes in the world, and For some reason we produce less and less within our own borders. Correlation?

Its not the Business owners fault that the US government made those people illegal. They like everyone else use every trick in the book to get a leg up on the competition.


RE: Vote Republican!
By maven81 on 7/6/2011 3:02:59 PM , Rating: 1
"Funny thing is you are hurting yourselves by taxing the rich."

Who's taxing the rich?! The funny thing is, that their marginal income tax rate is at historic lows. In 1944 it was 94% and somehow they survived! In the decades since it had regularly hovered in the 70-80% range. Now it's in the 30% range, and somehow that's too much?


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 5:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
This is the same stupidity that kept the country in a depression for a decade until WWII. Businesses are sitting on cash reserves and are afraid to invest it in anything right now because they are unsure what is going to happen if enough thieves like yourself get into power.

How is it wrong to kick down a door and take 94% of what someone works for but its ok when the government shows up and does it under threat of arrest? To the person losing the assets the effect is the same.

People do not work to just get by and have every thing that is deemed "extra" by the lemming like masses stolen by the governement and given to those that did nothing to earn it. The rich arent "greedy" the blood sucking parasites that think like you are!

If someone comes up with an idea and builds a company that employs thousands and changes the world they deserve to be rich, they made a fortune and left thousands of new middle class families and products that made peoples lives better in their wake and you want to steal everything they've worked for?!

What you need to do is move to Cuba where you'll be around more like minded people.


RE: Vote Republican!
By maven81 on 7/6/2011 9:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to break it to you but calling anyone that disagrees with you a communist hasn't worked since the 50s.
The only stupidity here is your belief in trickle down economics when decades of evidence has proven that it simply does not work. It is a fact that even companies that achieved record profits and received massive tax breaks have not only created jobs, but shed them.
Despite your theory that businesses are somehow "scared" it's painfully obvious that if they managed to increase profits while shedding jobs, there is ZERO incentive for them to hire more people.


RE: Vote Republican!
By Kurz on 7/6/2011 11:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I've seen the opposite.
I have seen tax revenue go up, and Economic Prosperity go up.
Your sources and the people who taught you have led you down the wrong path. There are several Economist that agree with us, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman being a big name ones.

There is always more incentive to expand their business.
Rationally your argument is flawed.


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 11:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
Business does not exist to give people jobs, they are there to make a buck, the jobs are a side effect of the business being able to accomplish its primary task of creating a return for its investors. Allow business to floursish and you'll get more jobs and more wealth, they'll hire when demand requires it not because its convienient for the unemployed.


RE: Vote Republican!
By sigmatau on 7/6/2011 3:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
Pure BS again! The rich have had the lowest tax rates for over 60 years during the past decade. How the f did this help our economy?

Ask yourself how we have been cutting taxes for the ultra rich while fewer jobs have been created, our dollar is weak, and our exports are dry. Correlation?


RE: Vote Republican!
By MrBungle123 on 7/6/2011 5:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Fewer jobs have been created because of uncertainty caused by power grabs like Obama care, crushing regulations institued by an overreaching government, the threat of rising taxes which scares international corporations into moving their labor force off shore.

The dollar is weak because of keyenesians like Obama/Bush/Bernanke/Geithner trippling the number of printed fiat dollars in circulation.

Exports are down because our cheif export is debt to buy more chinese crap because of what is going on in my first paragraph.


RE: Vote Republican!
By sigmatau on 7/6/2011 6:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! Good to know that the Faux News talking points are alive and well! The uncertainty of rising taxes? Really? You really had to mention that and you dared tell me to get an education. Wow!

So let me get this right, the 6+ years that the tax cuts were in effect during Bush were uncertain years because we knew Obama would get elected in the future and raise them? Or how about when Obama extended the tax cuts... did that bring more uncertainty? I don't see any jobs that it brought.

As for Obama care, that is also BS. If this caused so much uncertainty, then why haven't some of the health insurance companies folded? You should work for Fox! You are one of their zombies.


RE: Vote Republican!
By KCjoker on 7/6/2011 7:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
The Health insurance companies haven't folded they've just increased their premiums. But hey Obamacare was going to lower premiums right? LOL good to know your MSNBC talking points are alive adn well!! Also I'm so sick of hearing Obama/Dems say "give the wealthy a tax cut"....You're not GIVING anything you're taking less.....less to waste to be exact.


RE: Vote Republican!
By Kurz on 7/6/2011 11:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you completely forgot about the recession that was the Dot.Com bubble.

Hundreds of Insurance companies, including the ones that supported it have filed to be excluded from law. So they don't need to fold they just got a free subsidies from the American People.


RE: Vote Republican!
By Steve1981 on 7/6/2011 2:46:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'd like suggest that a lot of people like Donald Trump simply inherited their wealth and social/class status. Many with wealth didn't work for it.


I'd suggest that on the order of 80% of millionaires are "new rich".

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article...

quote:
Perhaps not, but our system created historical imbalance through slavery, racism, etc, often established and maintained by the rich. Let's also not forget that many business owners (i.e., the rich) today still take advantage of illegal labor to earn fortunes.


Ultimately this is irrelevant. You don't punish everyone for the sins of a few. There are many rich people who earned their money honestly.

quote:
but we're not hurting rich people through taxation


You're not hurting the truly wealthy at all. Donald Trump won't be materially affected if Obama raises taxes on people earning more than 100k or 250k a year. However, a lot of people in a town near you just might...Doctors, lawyers, accountants, managers, etc who all worked hard and would like to be wealthy are the ones hurt.


RE: Vote Republican!
By TSS on 7/6/2011 6:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

It was ok in the past, while you where financially alot healthyer then you are now, so why isn't it ok now?

I thought it was a tax bracket thing but no:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151...

Taking 1960 as a benchmark year, to pay 36% in tax you had to earn between $12,000-$14,000 a year. Corrected for inflation, that's $87,336 - $101,893 in 2010 dollars. Today's 35% top tax bracket is for people earning $361,000+.

Alternatively, people earning $50,000 or more in 1960 (about $363,000 in 2010 dollars) where paying 68%, almost double that of today.

I seriously wonder why raising taxes is such a big deal in a time when you really, really need it. I mean mandatory spending is already exceeding your total revenue intake. you can't cut your way out of trouble.


RE: Vote Republican!
By Steve1981 on 7/6/2011 7:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was ok in the past, while you where financially alot healthyer then you are now, so why isn't it ok now?...I seriously wonder why raising taxes is such a big deal in a time when you really, really need it.


Right now, the priority is on economic growth to ease unemployment. Raising taxes tends to run counter to that priority. Once the economy recovers, revenues will of course increase, and spending will probably decrease as well (unemployment, welfare, etc). If that isn't enough to square the deficit, then you talk about tax hikes. Of course, it goes without saying that the budget should be reasonably trim as well.


RE: Vote Republican!
By Steve1981 on 7/6/2011 3:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
PS:

quote:
I don't have a good solution to balance the system


It's called the American Dream. Everyone should have the opportunity, via hard work (both in their educational and professional lives) and financial discipline to become wealthy.


RE: Vote Republican!
By Arsynic on 7/6/2011 12:15:36 PM , Rating: 1
Republicans are for cuts for EVERYONE along with spending cuts.

What Republicans are for tax cuts for only "the rich"?


RE: Vote Republican!
By sigmatau on 7/6/2011 3:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
What? Get back under your rock. The right wants to kill Medicaire, raise taxes for the poor, and reduced taxes for the rich again.


RE: Vote Republican!
By Kurz on 7/7/2011 12:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
Ooo the Rich are the mean folks.
Medicaire is Bankrupt, Health Insurance was better when it was private.

Poor Don't pay any taxes or next to none. Top 20% pay for 70% of the Federal Tax Revenue.


RE: Vote Republican!
By 91TTZ on 7/6/2011 12:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, damn those republicans. We need more salt of the Earth politicians like Ted Kennedy, who came from a modest background, lived in a diverse neighborhood, and never hurt anybody*

*All true, with the exception of coming from a modest background (the family has billions), living in a diverse neighborhood (they lived in an exclusive, all white area and most prominent family neighbors went to Harvard), and never hurting anybody (he got drunk and crashed his car into a causeway, killing a woman who he was cheating on his wife with. He swam across the causeway, checked into a hotel, sobered up, then reported it to the police the next day). But other than that, real nice guy.


RE: Vote Republican!
By sigmatau on 7/6/2011 3:54:23 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, sounds like the Bush family except without cocaine.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki