US Politics Mega-thread - Page 347

On July 22 2013 11:25 Shiori wrote:

The problem is that when one says "I want to do X because it makes me happy" they mean it makes them experience pleasure, or comfort, or some positive emotion that is, generally, self-oriented. If you vote for something that affects, say, illegal immigrants, it makes you "happy" in the sense that you know you did the right thing, but not in the sense that you're doing it because you wish to experience happiness and are therefore chasing it like some sort of drug.

happiness is, by itself, a good thing.

On July 22 2013 11:50 Shiori wrote:

I don't think you can have happiness by itself. It seems fundamentally contextual and relational, to me.

On July 22 2013 11:50 Shiori wrote:

I don't think you can have happiness by itself. It seems fundamentally contextual and relational, to me.

On July 22 2013 12:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Like what, there's good and bad happiness? Such a Puritan

House Republicans unveiled legislation Monday that dramatically cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and various arts and wildlife programs.

The draft legislation (PDF), which will face committee hearings starting Tuesday, slashes the fiscal 2014 budget for the Interior Department and for the EPA by $5.5 billion from existing levels enacted for 2013 — a 19 percent cut that brings base funding down to $24.3 billion. It’s $4 billion below levels already required by sequestration — automatic spending cuts that both parties say are senseless and onerous.

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said the bill “reflects the extraordinarily hard choices needed to maintain critical investments and services for local communities,” while “dramatically scaling back lower-priority, or ‘nice-to-have’ programs.”

The proposal reflects the GOP’s opening salvo in what is shaping up to be an ugly battle to keep the government open when funding expires on September 30. Republicans are demanding a swath of new cuts to domestic programs, in part to protect the military budget from long-term spending reductions that the two sides agreed to in 2011.

Under the GOP’s draft spending bill, the EPA in particular takes a huge blow: its budget is cut by a whopping 34 percent, or $2.8 billion, bringing the new level to $5.5 billion. Other programs that take a hit include the National Park Service (9 percent cut), the Fish and Wildlife Service (27 percent cut) and the U.S. Geological Survey (9 percent cut).

Meanwhile, the bill increases funding to combat wildfires — which have ravaged parts of the country — by 16 percent, or $559 million more than the 2013 level.

“In addition,” Rogers said, defending the enormous cuts to the EPA, “by holding back overly zealous and unnecessary environmental regulations, this bill can have a positive effect on our economy and will help encourage job growth.”

The Smithsonian Institution and National Gallery of Art each face a 19 percent cut, while the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities are cut by nearly half (or $71 million).

On July 23 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
“In addition,” Rogers said, defending the enormous cuts to the EPA, “by holding back overly zealous and unnecessary environmental regulations, this bill can have a positive effect on our economy and will help encourage job growth.”

I love the underpants gnome theory at work here.

1. Slash budgets for departments that we don't like.
2. ?????
3. JOBS YALL!

And I'm also tired of the assumption that jobs are this end all be all of economics. They aren't. Improved standard of living is. If we just wanted everyone to be employed we could easily have full employment paying everyone to dig ditches. But we wouldn't cheer for a great economy then.

I guess I don't so much care about the cuts themselves. I am just getting really sick of every bit of legislation being rubber stamped cause somehow it magically creates jobs.

The Federal Election Commission is likely to vote Thursday to allow married same-sex couples to make joint political donations from an individual bank account, a privilege that has long been afforded to straight married couples.

If the FEC does alter its rules regarding donations from same-sex married couples, as expected, it would be one of the many changing federal regulations attributable to last month’s landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The FEC last examined the question of donations from married gay couples in April, when it issued an advisory opinion that concluded same-sex couples married under state law could not make joint political donations from an individual bank account. That advisory opinion was based on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. In that opinion, the FEC noted it could change its position if there was a Supreme Court ruling on DOMA.

“If DOMA is held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - or is otherwise modified or repealed - the Commission will, upon request, revisit this issue,” the opinion said.

In that case, a same-sex couple, members of the gay-friendly Log Cabin Republicans, wanted to donate to the special election campaign of Massachusetts Senate candidate Dan Winslow, a pro-marriage-equality Republican. The couple had been married in Massachusetts.

On July 23 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
“In addition,” Rogers said, defending the enormous cuts to the EPA, “by holding back overly zealous and unnecessary environmental regulations, this bill can have a positive effect on our economy and will help encourage job growth.”

I love the underpants gnome theory at work here.

1. Slash budgets for departments that we don't like.
2. ?????
3. JOBS YALL!

And I'm also tired of the assumption that jobs are this end all be all of economics. They aren't. Improved standard of living is. If we just wanted everyone to be employed we could easily have full employment paying everyone to dig ditches. But we wouldn't cheer for a great economy then.

I guess I don't so much care about the cuts themselves. I am just getting really sick of every bit of legislation being rubber stamped cause somehow it magically creates jobs.

On July 23 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
“In addition,” Rogers said, defending the enormous cuts to the EPA, “by holding back overly zealous and unnecessary environmental regulations, this bill can have a positive effect on our economy and will help encourage job growth.”

I love the underpants gnome theory at work here.

1. Slash budgets for departments that we don't like.
2. ?????
3. JOBS YALL!

And I'm also tired of the assumption that jobs are this end all be all of economics. They aren't. Improved standard of living is. If we just wanted everyone to be employed we could easily have full employment paying everyone to dig ditches. But we wouldn't cheer for a great economy then.

I guess I don't so much care about the cuts themselves. I am just getting really sick of every bit of legislation being rubber stamped cause somehow it magically creates jobs.

On July 23 2013 08:52 Danglars wrote:

The overly zealous and unnecessary regulations are exactly how it works to kill jobs. They seem to believe that the federal government is simply better than individuals at keeping their energy costs low, implementing energy standards and picking for them where to improve efficiency. People on the right have been documenting these things for ages. You don't need to go far to find specific areas that the EPA limits growth and adds costs unnecessarily for little or no gain.

Heck, improving the standard of living is hardly the goal here. Lately, you have to question whether the preservation of this or that environmental sector is done for the sake of the environment itself and not people. Health and safety be damned for people, we see this regulation doing this and that for the "environment." Not to mention myriad environmental activist groups sue the EPA (e.g. under CAA and CWA) to then settle the lawsuit for the regulations, taxpayers getting billed for the legal fees and regulation implementation fees, and then companies given unreasonable compliance time-frames. I'm all for vastly cutting their budget to limit the harm.

New Study: The Economic Benefits of EPA Regulations Massively Outweigh The Costs

[A] new study from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget [...] found that the benefits EPA regulations bring to the economy far outweigh the costs.

The way this works is pretty straight-forward. Environmental regulations do impose compliance costs on businesses, and can raise prices, which hurt economic growth. But they also create jobs by requiring pollution clean-up and prevention efforts. And perhaps even more importantly, they save the economy billions by avoiding pollution’s deleterious health effects. Particles from smoke stacks, for example, are implicated in respiratory diseases, heart attacks, infections and a host of other ailments, all of which require billions in health care costs per year to treat. Preventing those particles from going into the air means healthier and more productive citizens, who can go spend that money on something other than making themselves well again. [...]

The OMB found that a decade’s worth of major federal rules had produced annual benefits to the U.S. economy of between $193 billion and $800 billion and impose aggregate costs of $57 billion to $84 billion. “These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect the uncertain benefits and costs of each rule,” the report noted.

On July 23 2013 08:52 Danglars wrote:

The overly zealous and unnecessary regulations are exactly how it works to kill jobs. They seem to believe that the federal government is simply better than individuals at keeping their energy costs low, implementing energy standards and picking for them where to improve efficiency. People on the right have been documenting these things for ages. You don't need to go far to find specific areas that the EPA limits growth and adds costs unnecessarily for little or no gain.

Heck, improving the standard of living is hardly the goal here. Lately, you have to question whether the preservation of this or that environmental sector is done for the sake of the environment itself and not people. Health and safety be damned for people, we see this regulation doing this and that for the "environment." Not to mention myriad environmental activist groups sue the EPA (e.g. under CAA and CWA) to then settle the lawsuit for the regulations, taxpayers getting billed for the legal fees and regulation implementation fees, and then companies given unreasonable compliance time-frames. I'm all for vastly cutting their budget to limit the harm.

On July 23 2013 09:17 kwizach wrote:

I'll just leave this here...


Source

On July 23 2013 10:01 oneofthem wrote:
investing in protecting the environment is a long run project but it probably is one of the wisest things a country like the U.S. should be doing. very shortsighted.

On July 23 2013 09:57 kmillz wrote:


$193-800 billion added to the economy through creating pollution clean-up/prevention jobs and avoiding diseases through regulation? Is there a source for how they got these figures?

On July 23 2013 10:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

When appropriate they should be wise in any country