US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2659

On December 16 2015 02:11 Toadesstern wrote:

wat

On December 15 2015 16:40 IgnE wrote:


The politics seems to be all on the farming ownership class side. If agribusiness is using up all the water, the politics are pro-agribusiness. I don't understand what you and Jonny are going on about. Why would what passes for "the left" in California be against selling water to corporations at desalination cost or whatever?

On December 16 2015 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone else feel like Cruz is managing to hit a nice sweet spot? He's crazy enough for a lot of Trump supporters and non-crazy enough for a lot of pissed off establishment supporters. I'm starting to think we may end up with Cruz from the GOP rather than Rubio.

On December 16 2015 03:52 KwarK wrote:
If they raise the water price then it'll automatically hit the most thirsty crops because they're the ones which will see the biggest increase. If the profit margin on almonds is much higher than it is on less thirsty crops then the water should be used on the almonds and if not then the price will automatically target the thirstier crops.

I see no need to target specific crops, simply remove the subsidy by charging a price for the water that reflects its scarcity. The market can decide for itself whether it wants to continue growing almonds or whether it is no longer worthwhile.

This situation occurs whenever the state provides a subsidy by setting a value for a resource under its control that does not accurately represent the cost of the resource. The resource is overexploited due to the artificially depressed price creating a potential for profit where one would not naturally exist. The only way to correct it is to correct the price of the resource, eliminating the subsidy universally. Picking and choosing which groups may retain the subsidy and which may not is a path that will inevitably lead to corruption, lobbying and partisan struggles.

On December 16 2015 05:24 IgnE wrote:



I don't see the problem with a subsidized rate for residential users.

On December 16 2015 05:27 Plansix wrote:

Jacking the prices of basic human needs like food and water is the fastest ticket to riot town. A lot of the largest riots and civil unrest in human history have been caused by food and water shortages. Keeping the cost low is a necessity of government.

On December 16 2015 05:36 KwarK wrote:

Accurately accounting for the costs of providing water is the polar opposite of shortages. Shortages happen when the demand is artificially swelled by subsidies to a point where the supply is insufficient. Charging the correct amount ensures that people use water more prudently, that businesses use water only when it is profitable and that money is available for infrastructure improvements. For a certain price of water the water supply is unlimited, especially somewhere like CA which is adjacent to the ocean.

When the supply is as flexible as it is for water you get a shortage due to not enough free market, not too much. The free market can't solve everything but water in CA literally comes down to "money in, clean water out".

On December 16 2015 05:13 Gorsameth wrote:

its even easier for the Democrats to beat Cruz then it is Trump
The man who shut down the government, wasting billions of dollars, without any plan whatsoever.

A 31-year-old woman in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, has become the latest person to fall foul of the creeping criminalization of pregnancy after she was charged and jailed for attempted first-degree murder following a failed self-induced abortion.

Anna Yocca faces the possibility of a life sentence after she was indicted by a grand jury in Rutherford County for attempting to kill her unborn child.

Yocca was 24 weeks pregnant in September when she allegedly attempted to induce a miscarriage using a coat hanger. According to local news reports based on accounts from the arresting police officers, she lay in a bath before piercing herself with the hanger but became alarmed by the amount of blood she was losing and called her boyfriend, who rushed her to hospital.

There she gave birth to a boy weighing just 1.5lbs. The child was kept alive, but doctors are reported to have said that he incurred injuries as a result of the abortion attempt which, on top of his medical problems as a result of being so premature, means that he will require continued medical treatment.

Yocca was arrested on 11 December and charged with attempted first-degree murder. She is being held on a bond of $200,000 in the Rutherford County adult detention center and is scheduled to appear in court for the first time on 21 December. It is not known whether she has yet been assigned a public defense lawyer.

Experts in pregnancy law denounced the charges as a retrograde move that would complicate the already fraught experiences of women having premature births. “Women should not have to fear prosecution as a result of the outcome of their pregnancy whether they have healthy births, miscarriages or abortions,” said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

On December 16 2015 05:27 Plansix wrote:

Jacking the prices of basic human needs like food and water is the fastest ticket to riot town. A lot of the largest riots and civil unrest in human history have been caused by food and water shortages. Keeping the cost low is a necessity of government.

On December 16 2015 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:
Imo Bush is out because he never wanted to be in.
Money and Influence, while important can only get you so far. I don't think he ever had the commitment and drive to get there and is only in the race because it is expected of him.

As for Cruz, yes he can justify all sorts of things to his followers but the general electorate isn't going to swallow it.

And even if the GOP can defy the convention (donno if they can) it would cause people to turn away and while they probably wont vote Hillary a vote for a 3e party Trump has the same effect for the GOP. They need all those supporters if they want to win the election.

On December 16 2015 06:20 KwarK wrote:

They don't want that anymore. You can't run on being reasonable and respectful towards your opponents.

On December 16 2015 06:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Just do what Mankiw suggested - use the extra revenue to give consumers a lump sum rebate.

One can describe the 2016 Republican presidential candidates in many ways, but “silent” is seldom one of them. Yet after 195 nations agreed on Saturday to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, the Republican field remained nearly mum.

There could be two reasons for this. They’re not interested in acknowledging a victory for President Obama. Perhaps more important, blocking international action on climate change is not necessarily what Republican voters want.

Before the Paris meeting, the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules to cut emissions from coal-fired power plants, a move the Republican-led Congress voted this month to scuttle. Mr. Obama said he would veto that legislation, and the Paris agreement was written in language that avoids having to put it to a congressional vote.

In light of the Paris pact and broad public support, it’s starting to look like a handful of Republicans against a warming world.

About two-thirds of Americans want the United States to join an international pact to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. While a small majority of Republican voters oppose such a pact, a similarly small majority of Republicans favor domestic limits on carbon emissions from power plants — the limits that the Republican-led Congress voted to block.

The survey also suggests that denial of climate science is receding like so many glaciers: 75 percent of those polled agreed that global warming was seriously affecting the environment, or that it would in the future. More than half of Republicans (58 percent) agreed.

That makes things tricky for a Republican candidate hoping to lure climate change skeptics in the primary, then pull more moderates in the general election — which may explain the silence. Of the nine Republican candidates who will debate in prime time on Tuesday, only Gov. John Kasich of Ohio had any substantial comment on the pact: “While the governor believes that climate change is real and that human activity contributes to it, he has serious concerns with an agreement that the Obama administration deliberately crafted to avoid having to submit it to the Senate for approval,” Mr. Kasich’s spokesman said in a statement. “That’s an obvious indicator that they expect it to result in significant job loss and inflict further damage to our already sluggish economy.” The administration would argue that it avoided the Republican-controlled Congress because it would almost surely vote this agreement down, regardless of the world’s support for it.