EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 170
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 18 2013 03:05 kwizach wrote: @JonnyBNoHo & @ziggurat, regarding the stimulus, see what paralleluniverse wrote. In addition, the output of the activity generated through the spending is also to take into consideration when assessing its costs. Overall, it was clearly beneficial. What PU wrote and the paper he linked to were certainly interesting. I think theDeLong / Summers paper is on the right track but is still missing information that keeps it from being conclusive. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Obama proposes $2 billion plan for clean energy technology research President Obama on Friday proposed taking $2 billion in royalties the government receives from offshore oil and gas leasing to fund research into clean energy technologies designed to lessen the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels to power cars and trucks. Obama called for establishing an Energy Security Trust, which would divert $2 billion in federal revenue from oil and gas leasing toward clean energy research. The money would be invested in breakthrough technologies that ultimately, if successful, could remake America’s energy economy by weaning the transportation sector off oil. Source This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 18 2013 07:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Source This is a good idea. I'm not sure how the numbers actually work but the core concept is spot on. it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields? $2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that? | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On March 18 2013 07:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields? $2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that? Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 18 2013 07:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: it's a terrible idea. why are we pouring money into things like this? why not spend 2 billion dollars less and give a 2 billion dollar tax-benefit to oil companies so that it is even more attractive to use fracking to drill the shale-oil fields? $2 billion for research will create how many jobs? unemployment in the oil boom states is well below the national average, and in ND we are above full employment and will be for probably the next twenty years. can Obama's clean energy program boast anything even close to that? I believe it will include incentives to switch to using natural gas. Right now the big problem in the nat gas industry is finding enough people to use the stuff. On the oil side there's still plenty of room for domestic suppliers to replace foreign suppliers. I don't think either oil or gas drillers would really benefit from production incentives. I don't see any cost constraints strangling the industry. Edit: This would also provide greens an incentive to support drilling on federal land. I have no clue if they'd go for it. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On March 18 2013 00:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: yep, they would usually abstain from voting. conservative disgust with the party is at a pretty high pitch right now, much more of this moderate bull-crap and they'll cause a straight up schism. Independents don't win elections, as we just saw in the Romney-Obama election. I actually think Perry would have had a better shot than Romney, but it doesn't matter either way. What's done is done and I'm pretty sure it'll be someone younger this time: Rand Paul or Marco Rubio. I cant help but feeling you are way out of touch. You want more zealots/idiots that refuse to compromise on anything. Thats exactly what we dont need. FYI I also some of those links about the CPAC on that site are interesting. Bush's AG complaining about Islam wanting Sharia law yet his party wants to impose evangelical Christian beliefs on the general population -_- | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 18 2013 07:49 koreasilver wrote: You would imagine that looking for the future and taking sustainability seriously would be the conservative thing to do, in all its etymological senses. I still find it so bizarre and almost utterly nonsensical that the environmentalist sensibilities have moved from the "conservatives" to the "liberals" from the early-mid 20th century to the modern day. probably has something to do with the artificiality of american rightwing politics. a lot of money floating around for ideas that benefit the march of glorious industry. your average american still wants clean air, water and a pristine america for future generations. progressivism itself was not a leftwing or controversial idea. moral progress in politics and society etc. teddy rrosevelt was onboard with it and it was about finding problems in life and trying to solve them. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 18 2013 07:49 koreasilver wrote: You would imagine that looking for the future and taking sustainability seriously would be the conservative thing to do, in all its etymological senses. I still find it so bizarre and almost utterly nonsensical that the environmentalist sensibilities have moved from the "conservatives" to the "liberals" from the early-mid 20th century to the modern day. Yeah, "liberal" and "conservative" labels often don't make much sense in politics. Go figure  | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Is this a parody, or a real website? I'm actually really confused. This Op-ed by Friedman has an interesting perspective on the budget problem. I kind of agree with it, though I don't know if his number are right. ONE of my favorite quotes about the state of U.S. politics was offered a couple years ago by Gerald Seib, a Wall Street Journal columnist, when he observed that “America and its political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith in their ability to do so. A political system that expects failure doesn’t try very hard to produce anything else.” That’s us today — our entire political system is guilty of the “soft bigotry of low expectations” for ourselves. I raise this now because it strikes me as crazy that one of the obvious solutions to our budget, energy and environmental problems — the one that would be the least painful and have the best long-term impact (a carbon tax) — is off the table. Meanwhile, the solution that is as dumb as the day is long — a budget sequester that slashes spending indiscriminately — is on the table. Shrinking the tax deduction for charity is on the table. Shrinking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the poor are on the table. But a carbon tax that could close the deficit and clean the air, weaken petro-dictators, strengthen the dollar, drive clean-tech innovation and still leave some money to lower corporate and income taxes is off the table. So the solutions that are lose-lose and divisive are on the table, while the solution that is win-win-win-win-win — and has both liberal and conservative supporters — is off the table. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 18 2013 12:01 ticklishmusic wrote: http://www.mrconservative.com/ Is this a parody, or a real website? I'm actually really confused. This Op-ed by Friedman has an interesting perspective on the budget problem. I kind of agree with it, though I don't know if his number are right. This guy is exactly on top of the clueless heap as to why the carbon tax is opposed by most Republicans and doesn't have extensive Democratic support (though gets tons of lip service in that regard every time climate change is in the forefront of the news). Raising taxes incurs tremendous cost on the consumer enough to marginally clean the air but weaken our ability to enjoy it in prosperity. Strengthening the dollar isn't on the table: new federal revenue is lost to myriad new spending programs before too long. It's the fool's panacea for societal ills. I'm still waiting for the bureau-dictators to stop unrolling the red tape on industry even as politicians buy more rolls. If closing the deficit was even close to a priority in persistent public demand, more than sympathetic nods to the idea, we'd have another Coolidge in the white house. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 18 2013 07:53 Sadist wrote: I cant help but feeling you are way out of touch. You want more zealots/idiots that refuse to compromise on anything. Thats exactly what we dont need. FYI I also some of those links about the CPAC on that site are interesting. Bush's AG complaining about Islam wanting Sharia law yet his party wants to impose evangelical Christian beliefs on the general population -_- I'm not out of touch with the conservative thinking though, and in a Republican-primary/election that is one of the largest factors in who gets the nomination/wins the race. Conservative dissatisfaction with the party leadership is ridiculous right now, if you want any evidence just look at this CPAC. how many people were praising the leadership? how many compromising moderates like Christie were invited, or would even be welcome? besides I find it to be a little disturbing that the name of the game nowadays is to compromise your core moral/philosophical beliefs. I like to quote Lincoln on this issue: "Let us not grope for some middle ground between right and wrong." and I would argue that enforcing some Christian morality is not only beneficial, but in line with American tradition; and further is essential for the continuing health of the party. Sharia and Islam are not comparable, imo. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 18 2013 07:38 HellRoxYa wrote: Are we interested in the 5 year plan or the 20 year (and beyond) plan? Short term jobs are irrelevant to the issue. I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
You would imagine that looking for the future and taking sustainability seriously would be the conservative thing to do, in all its etymological senses. I still find it so bizarre and almost utterly nonsensical that the environmentalist sensibilities have moved from the "conservatives" to the "liberals" from the early-mid 20th century to the modern day. I find it quite bizarre that environmental protection is a partisan issue at all. One would think that oxygen and clean water would be a common ground even in america. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States601 Posts
On March 18 2013 17:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: I don't see any evidence that investing in inferior technologies in the vain hope of forcing them to be superior to have any kind of efficacy. further, I don't think the government needs to be involved at all. they are already spending too much and doing too much. they need to "back off a bit and set (their) cup down" to quote the Dogg. Every piece of technology starts of as inferior (whether its because of cost or implementation), that kind of thinking is not really the best way to approach innovation IMO. | ||
| ||
