HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NYC_SKP » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

NYC_SKP

Profile Information

Name: N/A
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: The Golden State
Home country: www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&f
Current location: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1243&pid=30906
Member since: Thu May 29, 2008, 11:43 PM
Number of posts: 68,452

About Me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593371#post1 [div class=excerpt]http://www.democraticunderground.com/124384291 http://www.democraticunderground.com/124384554 1. It need not be unanimous. But there must be the consensus. I tend to think that if one person is strongly opposed to a lock, and is making that stand based on some principle they are able to articulate, then that position should be respected and consensus does not exist. But if some people are just-kinda-meh-not-sure opposed to a lock, then you can assume that consensus exists. But I think the bigger picture is that if everyone is doing the job in good faith and being polite to each other, then it should not be very hard to determine if consensus exists and act accordingly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595617 [/div] ~~~~~~ Hi Jerry!!! :thumbsup:[font color=blue][b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|Visit the new DU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Progressive Media Resources Group\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"][/font size][/font color][/b]:thumbsup: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012937-11-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg :thumbsup:[font color = blue][b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|Visit the new DU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Progressive Media Resources Group\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"][/font size][/font color][/b]:thumbsup: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012937-11-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg [b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|[font style=\\\"color:#0000ff !important;\\\"]:thumbsup: Visit the new DU Progressive Media Resources Group] http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l217/Shockwave_73/warren_2016_bumper_sticker.jpg blue color is color:#0000ff

Journal Archives

Some interesting figures that came from simple research about CGI:

I work with nonprofits and thought I'd look up the numbers for CGI.

You know, some orgs send a lot of their revenue on direct assistance while others spend a lot on salaries and expenses.

Only 32% of CGI revenue was spend on grants paid out.

Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:

Revenue: $28,221,924

Grants paid: $8,975,872

Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577

Other expenses: $12,296,668

Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf

GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.

Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.

Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.

And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.

There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.

Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.

The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.


If the party isn't going to vet candidates, and the media isn't going to vet candidates, then it's up to us, I guess.

Answer: 1: NO. Only 32% of CGI revenue was spend on grants paid out.

Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:

Revenue: $28,221,924

Grants paid: $8,975,872

Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577

Other expenses: $12,296,668

Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf

Recommended.

Shedding some light on the candidates, I'm grateful.

Also, glad to hear John Kerry get props for a change.

DU: Beware the Water Desalination Movement and it's Lies.

"Water is the next Oil" "Be Prepared to Pay Gas Prices for Water"

Citizens, we are going to see more and more posts promoting desalination as a solution to drought and scarcity of water.

-- Proceed with caution, desalination is a very costly and energy-intensive process and has dire environmental consequences.
-- It is favored by mega-utility companies and if deployed will make us more and more dependent upon nameless faceless corporations that will not answer to our needs.
-- Defend your local water utility, if you still have one, and lobby for more conservation measures and penalties for water waste.
-- Hold your legislators' feet to the fire to hold big agriculture and fracking entities to strict conservation and water recovery standards.
-- Water scarcity keeps suburban sprawl to a minimum; desalination plants are a developer's dream. Don't be tempted, be informed.

Marin County voters have always had the right to vote on water plans. In recent times, however, egged on by greedy developers and builders that need water to grow Marin development, the Marin Water Board has been trying to sneak one over on the voters and get a desalination plant up and running there.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/desalination-has-a-big-problem/


Read Food & Water Watch’s report, Desalination – An Ocean of Problems

Read Debbie Cook’s essay, Desalination – Energy Down the Drain

Watch the PBS "POV" video, "Thirst"! http://www.pbs.org/pov/thirst/



And, THANK YOU!!!

DU: Beware the Hydrogen Economy Lies being pushed by the Fossil Fuel industry.

It's very easy to fall for the lies:

"hydrogen is a clean energy source" (it's not a source and it's neither clean nor green)

From a single OP earlier today, the post contains a great deal of information and it needs to be vetted. I'm selecting two claims to debunk.

First: A graphic that reads "Sphera Hydrogen is Easy to Use". Follow the links to see THIS graphic explaining that it's a Natural Gas and Coal-to-Hydrogen Scheme.



Throw some solar and wind turbines in and Carbon Capture and Sequestration and all of a sudden it's "green" (washed).

Second: The 2013 model of Panasonic's household fuel cell (ENE FARM) is mentioned as if to demonstrate proof of this new clean technology. Well, the problem is that these fuel cells use natural gas as the energy source. They depend 100% on Fossil Fuels.



Household fuel cells have adopted city gas (methane, CH4) as fuel, and steam reforming
as the method to produce hydrogen, so that the existing city gas supply infrastructure can be used.

Since hydrogen is produced in the place where it is used, there is no need to transport or store hydrogen, which is hard to handle.

However, when hydrogen is extracted by steam reforming, carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) are produced, because it is a fossil resource containing carbon that is being reformed.

http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc02_02.html


Look, I'm as interested in solutions as anyone, but I also spend most of my time studying the energy industry and I have never seen such greenwashing done as is being done right now by the conglomeration of interests struggling to keep a stranglehold on their piece of the energy pie.

Specifically, and with the growth in rooftop solar and battery electric vehicles, the old model of petrol filling stations and high utility bills is beginning to be displaced.

Do you know what would keep us beholden to the current Big Gas and Oil interests?

Hydrogen.

It's true. We make shit up all the time, it's called "experimentation"...

We ask, "what if" all the time, and then we test it and test it again.

Ya know, skepticscott, it's a real shame you resist the beauty of the truth here, of the LTR between science and religion. It's a love affair, not a contest.

Science and religion are practically inseparable, both having been with humankind throughout history, and with no indication that this will ever change, both are in our DNA.

How you've been convinced to believe that they are somehow incompatible in every case is beyond me, the evidence of their similarities and symbiosis is overwhelming.

Both are products of our innate curiosity, both require faith at different stages, both seek to find order in things and to explain things.

Science involves more testing and research and constant refinement, but other than these the two domains are more alike than they are different.

I don't need to back it up, it's all self evident.



Yay! I was looking for this graphic and thanks to you I found it. H2 vs BEV efficiency.



List of battery electric vehicles sold in the US, and all can charge at your home or work!



I won't list each one, just the manufacturer names.

BMW
Scion
Chevrolet
Honda
Volkswagon
Fiat
Nissan
Mitsubishi
Smart
Kia
Tesla
Mini Cooper
Mercedes Benz
Toyota

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=1984&year2=2016&vtype=Electric

How many Hydrogen vehicles are on the market, and why the hell would anyone want one?

Ted Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs? Does anyone, D or R, NOT sleep with Goldman Sachs.

Jesus Christ.

To the left and to the right, Goldman Sachs...



Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs Problem
She talks populism, but hobnobs with Wall Street.

—By David Corn Wed Jun. 4, 2014 6:00 AM EDT



A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton delivered a much-touted policy speech at the New America Foundation in Washington, where she talked passionately about the financial plight of Americans who "are still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited." She bemoaned the fact that the slice of the nation's wealth collected by the top 1 percent—or 0.01 percent—has "risen sharply over the last generation," and she denounced this "throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons." Her speech, in which she cited the various projects of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation that address economic inequality, was widely compared to the rhetoric of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the unofficial torchbearer of the populist wing of the Democratic Party. Here was Hillary, test-driving a theme for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, sticking up for the little guy and trash-talking the economic elites. She decried the "shadow banking system that operated without accountability" and caused the financial crisis that wiped out millions of jobs and the nest eggs, retirement funds, and college savings of families across the land. Yet at the end of this week, when all three Clintons hold a daylong confab with donors to their foundation, the site for this gathering will be the Manhattan headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

Goldman was a key participant in that "shadow banking system" that precipitated the housing market collapse and the consequent financial debacle that slammed America's middle class. (A system that was unleashed in part due to deregulation supported by the Clinton administration in the 1990s.) This investment house might even be considered one of the robber barons of Wall Street. In its 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a congressionally created panel set up to investigate the economic meltdown, approvingly cited a financial expert who concluded that Goldman practices had "multiplied the effects of the collapse in subprime" mortgage market that set off the wider financial implosion that nearly threw the nation into a depression.

Hillary Clinton's shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldman—the firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation—prompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)

In recent years, Goldman Sachs has hardly exemplified the values and principles Clinton earnestly hailed in her speech. A few reminders:

~~~see the rest of the article here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem





Please put this in your journal and/or create a new OP.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »