|
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. |
The Solar power problem has been bubbling up for years in many states. Basically, the problem is caused because basically every state's power grid is so heavily regulated with outdated regulations (that obviouly did not anticipate this kind of power generation). On major issue is that the cost of generating electricity is actually only a small % of your bill, so when the meters essentially "run backwards" this is a net loss for the company. Most states, for instance, wont let them charge $X/kwh but only pay you $Y/kwh for what you produce.
Tons of states are going to have to address this sooner or later, because electricity is too heavily regulated for the companies to adequately respond to market forces like solar.
|
On July 24 2013 07:06 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 06:42 kwizach wrote:On July 24 2013 02:54 cLutZ wrote:On July 24 2013 00:28 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 15:43 Danglars wrote:In General From fiscal year 2003 (FY 2003) through FY 2012, Federal agencies published 37,786 final rules in the Federal Register. OMB reviewed 3,203 of these final rules under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Of these OMB-reviewed rules, 536 are considered major rules, primarily as a result of their anticipated impact on the economy (i.e., an impact of $100 million in at least one year). It is important to emphasize that many major rules are budgetary transfer rules, and may not impose significant regulatory costs on the private sector. So absurd on its face. In a free democracy, why do you have to implement 37,786 rules in a year from agencies appointed by the executive? Operating as the fourth branch of government for how many years now? Unless I'm reading this sentence wrong, it says the 37,768 rules were published from 2003 through 2012, no in one year. And the agencies in question are part of the executive branch, which is the third branch of government, so I'm not sure what your second question is all about. On July 23 2013 15:43 Danglars wrote:
In the case of the EPA rules reported here, however, a substantial portion of the uncertainty is similar across several rules, including (1) the uncertainty in the reduction of premature deaths associated with reduction in particulate matter and (2) the uncertainty in the monetary value of reducing mortality risk.
Yep. Let's just make assumptions that agree with our ends. They are, after all, working for the man that may hire or fire people in this positions. Wonder if the CBO will be commissioned to do a cost analysis of EPA/Fed Agency rules implementations for the last fiscal year. Did you search for "uncertainty" in the document just to make a point? The report addresses this uncertainty notably by providing ranges of estimates, and the bottom estimate for the benefits still far outweighs the top estimate for the costs. With regards to your objection, it's a bit too easy to declare the study can't be trusted simply because it comes from executive - it's true that it's important to know who wrote it, but if you're going to discard it your position should at least be founded on objections you have with regards to the content itself (errors in measurement, poor methodology, etc.). The link I provided you with also mentions other studies, not done by the executive branch, which corroborate the findings. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:On July 23 2013 14:20 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 09:57 kmillz wrote:On July 23 2013 09:17 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 08:52 Danglars wrote: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 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. I'll just leave this here... 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. Source $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? Yes, the study itself. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
I love that they include the make-work jobs they create in there. Take money from some people, give jobs to government workers and contractors, net jobs! I'd like to see next their proposals to pay a group of workers to dig a ditch and another to fill it in, because that's creating jobs and should be added to net benefits. Of course they can label their pollution and prescribe how it is cleaned up and when it's cleaned up enough. They mention job creation in the private sector as well as in the public sector. Also, from the original article: t’s worth pointing out that similar findings have been regularly dug up by other researchers. In 2011, an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that job loss due to increased energy prices from MATS would be swamped by new jobs in pollution abatement and control. It also found that for each major EPA rule finalized by the Obama Administration at the time, annual benefits exceeded costs by $10 to $95 billion a piece. EPI even returned to the question in 2012, and found net job gains from MATS would reach 117,000 to 135,000 in 2015. [...]
Surveys of small businesses routinely fail to find compelling evidence that firms view taxes and regulations as a major impediment to hiring, an EPA-mandated clean-up of the Chesapeake BAY is anticipated to create 35 times as many jobs as the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and jobs in the coal industry actually increased by 10 percent after the EPA cracked down on mountaintop-removal mining in 2009. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
Save the country billions in health care costs through regulation? You can cut their budget in half and still gain the best health care benefits. Citation needed. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
It's the difference between light handed regulation and heavy handed regulation that I'm talking about. Strip down the unnecessary stuff on top of basic environmental regulations, cut the cozy relationship between environmental activists, their lawyers, and the EPA, and let individuals be more responsible for their own energy costs rather than imposing federal will on companies. Letting individuals be more responsible for their own energy costs is the baseline. The study clearly shows the economy benefits from doing more than that - in addition to the environment obviously benefiting from it. OMB doesn't use dynamic scoring... From their own report... Jorgenson and Wilcoxen modeled dynamic simulations with and without environmental regulation on long-term growth in the U.S. to assess the effects and reported that the long-term cost of regulation is a 2.59% reduction in Gross National Product. Did you read that paper? Here's the relevant paragraph they put in their introduction: We have not attempted to assess the benefits resulting from a cleaner environment. We have not accounted for consumption benefits resulting from environmental cleanup or production benefits associated with pollution abatement. The conclusions of this study cannot be taken to imply that pollution control is too burdensome or, for that matter, insufficiently restrictive. Your other quote is another cherry-pick among several studies in the literature review that show differing results and do not focus on the overall impact at the US level. I could give you another such example in Berman, Eli and Linda T.M. Bui. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South Coast Air Basin.”, Journal of Public Economics, 2001, 79: pp. 265-295, which state: Our estimates of zero employment effects contradict the conventional wisdom of employers (mostly outside of refining) that environmental regulation ‘costs jobs’ (Goodstein, 1996) so a comment is in order. Beyond posturing in public debate, employers may honestly overestimate the job loss induced by a pervasive regulation by confusing the firm’s product demand curve with that of the industry. The former is more price elastic due to competition from other firms. If all firms in the industry are faced with the same cost-increasing regulatory change and product demand is inelastic, the output of individual firms may be only slightly reduced. In that case, the negative effect on employment through the output elasticity of labor demand may well be dominated by a positive effect through the marginal rate of technical substitution between PACE and labor, leading to a net increases in employment as a result of regulation
[...]
Though the public debate has centered around employment effects, a full accounting of the costs of regulation should properly focus on the effects of regulation on productivity and the benefits in health and other outcomes. Related research on South Coast refineries (Berman and Bui, 1998) has found productivity gains between 1987–92, in contrast to declining productivity in comparison regions. A symmetric analysis of the benefits of the South Coast regulations in improved air quality and health outcomes of residents would form the basis for a much more complete economic evaluation of this important and unprecedented episode in air quality regulation. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:Even the "positive" citations are tepid I.E.: Kahn examines census and state data and finds that better educated, wealthier populations experienced cleaner air, but that poorer, less educated populations experienced a greater overall improvement in air quality between 1980 and 1998 in California. During this time period, the exposure of the Hispanic population to pollution also fell sharply along with exposure differentials between richer and poorer people. The author concludes that, “[g]iven the overall trend in improvements for certain demographic groups, it appears that regulation under the Clean Air Act has helped, and not economically harmed, the ‘have nots.’" Translated: We cannot be sure that regulation has helped people, instead of just the overall trend towards improved living standards over the years, but if it has, its only helped one segment of the populace (without taking into account costs for other segments). That's not what it says at all. Are you being dishonest on purpose or are you simply incapable of reading the paragraph you quoted yourself? On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:
In other words, your own study fails to support the conclusions that you assert from it. In other words, it doesn't. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:Plus, even if accepted, the benefits are probably no more of a correlation, much like the correlation between OSHA and the reduction in workplace accidents SEE: + Show Spoiler + I'll be waiting for you to show us that they are. The main quote you cited to rebut my argument: We have not attempted to assess the benefits resulting from a cleaner environment. We have not accounted for consumption benefits resulting from environmental cleanup or production benefits associated with pollution abatement. The conclusions of this study cannot be taken to imply that pollution control is too burdensome or, for that matter, insufficiently restrictive. Goes against the conclusions you presented. No, that quote was from the study you referenced in your first quote, namely the Jorgenson and Wilcoxen paper. And in the introduction of that paper which you referenced to argue that the costs were 2.6 pc of GDP, the authors say they're looking at the costs and not the benefits. The report I initially linked to, meanwhile, looks at both the costs and the benefits. On July 24 2013 02:54 cLutZ wrote:
The report, by its own design does not stand for the propositions you say it does. My proposition is that the benefits outweigh the costs. The entire report is a demonstration for this. They use ranges of estimates to account for uncertainty. If you have any comments/concerns with regards to specific numbers, go ahead. I'm saying that the numbers accepted by the report you cited come from a flawed EPA/other agency analysis that uses "Willingness to Pay" polling to determine a large number of its economic benefits. Its all a bunch of bollox, on top of the complete failure of any of the agencies to demonstrate causation.
Be specific. Which numbers do you dispute?
|
On July 25 2013 16:40 cLutZ wrote:
The Solar power problem has been bubbling up for years in many states. Basically, the problem is caused because basically every state's power grid is so heavily regulated with outdated regulations (that obviouly did not anticipate this kind of power generation). On major issue is that the cost of generating electricity is actually only a small % of your bill, so when the meters essentially "run backwards" this is a net loss for the company. Most states, for instance, wont let them charge $X/kwh but only pay you $Y/kwh for what you produce.
Tons of states are going to have to address this sooner or later, because electricity is too heavily regulated for the companies to adequately respond to market forces like solar.
Yeah, that stupid fee can really only be explained if the power companies are operating at a loss. Having customers produce your product for damn near free and then giving it to you to sell to other people isn't something you usually spurn.
|
On July 25 2013 16:40 cLutZ wrote:
The Solar power problem has been bubbling up for years in many states. Basically, the problem is caused because basically every state's power grid is so heavily regulated with outdated regulations (that obviouly did not anticipate this kind of power generation). On major issue is that the cost of generating electricity is actually only a small % of your bill, so when the meters essentially "run backwards" this is a net loss for the company. Most states, for instance, wont let them charge $X/kwh but only pay you $Y/kwh for what you produce.
Tons of states are going to have to address this sooner or later, because electricity is too heavily regulated for the companies to adequately respond to market forces like solar.
I had a feeling that companies were forced to reimburse in a manner that became a net loss for them. You gotta wonder why any electricity company would propose something so unpopular as a fee on solar, and I think I've found my explanation here. Ever since my governor Gray Davis proved it was possible to deregulate the energy industry while keeping the sector regulated up the wazoo, I've had to realize all is not what it seems with how electricity producers interact with the state and the public.
|
One would think that a flat fee could be applied to ALL customers to offset the cost, instead of a bloated $/kWh. Certainly, people that use electricity conservatively also count as a net cost to the company as well...
|
On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases?
I always wonder the same thing.
|
On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing.
Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business.
If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling.
|
On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling.
At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting.
|
On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting.
Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it?
|
On July 25 2013 22:48 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 16:40 cLutZ wrote:
The Solar power problem has been bubbling up for years in many states. Basically, the problem is caused because basically every state's power grid is so heavily regulated with outdated regulations (that obviouly did not anticipate this kind of power generation). On major issue is that the cost of generating electricity is actually only a small % of your bill, so when the meters essentially "run backwards" this is a net loss for the company. Most states, for instance, wont let them charge $X/kwh but only pay you $Y/kwh for what you produce.
Tons of states are going to have to address this sooner or later, because electricity is too heavily regulated for the companies to adequately respond to market forces like solar. Yeah, that stupid fee can really only be explained if the power companies are operating at a loss. Having customers produce your product for damn near free and then giving it to you to sell to other people isn't something you usually spurn.
Under net metering the utility pays you full retail price then the utility is stuck with the distribution costs. The only one receiving a gift here is the homeowner.
|
On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it?
I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter.
|
An editorial in the WSJ yesterday pretty well captured my thoughts about President Obama's economic policies. It makes the point that the middle class has suffered more under Obama than under any other president in modern times. The article argues that Obama's focus on "inequality" has left the economy and the middle class in much worse shape than the country would have been if he had just focused on growth. We could be seeing real economic growth that would benefit all levels of society, like happened under Reagan and Clinton, if not for Obama's misguided policies.
It's pretty depressing to see the middle class losing ground. I don't think that's happened any other time since the 2nd world war.
|
On July 26 2013 01:59 ziggurat wrote:An editorial in the WSJ yesterday pretty well captured my thoughts about President Obama's economic policies. It makes the point that the middle class has suffered more under Obama than under any other president in modern times. The article argues that Obama's focus on "inequality" has left the economy and the middle class in much worse shape than the country would have been if he had just focused on growth. We could be seeing real economic growth that would benefit all levels of society, like happened under Reagan and Clinton, if not for Obama's misguided policies. It's pretty depressing to see the middle class losing ground. I don't think that's happened any other time since the 2nd world war.
Interesting. Do you think Democrats can change their focus to growth instead of inequality?
|
On July 26 2013 02:06 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 01:59 ziggurat wrote:An editorial in the WSJ yesterday pretty well captured my thoughts about President Obama's economic policies. It makes the point that the middle class has suffered more under Obama than under any other president in modern times. The article argues that Obama's focus on "inequality" has left the economy and the middle class in much worse shape than the country would have been if he had just focused on growth. We could be seeing real economic growth that would benefit all levels of society, like happened under Reagan and Clinton, if not for Obama's misguided policies. It's pretty depressing to see the middle class losing ground. I don't think that's happened any other time since the 2nd world war. Interesting. Do you think Democrats can change their focus to growth instead of inequality?
I don't think it ever crosses Obama's mind that he might be wrong about something. But I do think the country would have done a lot better under Hillary Clinton.
|
On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter.
Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit.
I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future.
Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill.
|
On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill.
What if I'm paying for your credit-card bill though? And I tell you not to buy the game, but you do anyway, so I say I'm not paying the bill?
Cause from my PoV, that's a more accurate analogy.
|
On July 26 2013 02:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill. What if I'm paying for your credit-card bill though? And I tell you not to buy the game, but you do anyway, so I say I'm not paying the bill? Cause from my PoV, that's a more accurate analogy.
Well if you wanna go that route: Republicans spend boatloads of money just like the democrats do. So we didn't just buy one game, we bought lots of games. Some were for you and some were for me. You told me not to buy mine but you insisted we buy yours. In the end we both got some games we wanted. But then when the bill came, you screamed at me for buying games and pretended like you didn't get any games yourself. And then you refused to pay the credit card bill. And even if you actually didn't get a single game, it still makes no sense to oppose paying the credit card bill if you're trying to be fiscally responsible. Not paying that bill forfeits your credit rating AND saddles you with very high interest short term debt. If you're pushing for real fiscal responsibility (and not just bitching about spending) then you would want that credit card bill paid ASAP.
|
On July 26 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:[quote] SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill. What if I'm paying for your credit-card bill though? And I tell you not to buy the game, but you do anyway, so I say I'm not paying the bill? Cause from my PoV, that's a more accurate analogy. Well if you wanna go that route: Republicans spend boatloads of money just like the democrats do. So we didn't just buy one game, we bought lots of games. Some were for you and some were for me. You told me not to buy mine but you insisted we buy yours. In the end we both got some games we wanted. But then when the bill came, you screamed at me for buying games and pretended like you didn't get any games yourself. And then you refused to pay the credit card bill.
I am not the Republicans in Congress. I'm a private citizen who doesn't give a rats ass about almost any of the spending.
So for me, it was me telling them to stop buying almost all of the games, and them ignoring me.
|
On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill.
When you pay your credit card bill you are reducing your debt 
The credit card analogy would be increasing your credit limit or not.
|
On July 26 2013 02:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 02:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill. What if I'm paying for your credit-card bill though? And I tell you not to buy the game, but you do anyway, so I say I'm not paying the bill? Cause from my PoV, that's a more accurate analogy. Well if you wanna go that route: Republicans spend boatloads of money just like the democrats do. So we didn't just buy one game, we bought lots of games. Some were for you and some were for me. You told me not to buy mine but you insisted we buy yours. In the end we both got some games we wanted. But then when the bill came, you screamed at me for buying games and pretended like you didn't get any games yourself. And then you refused to pay the credit card bill. I am not the Republicans in Congress. I'm a private citizen who doesn't give a rats ass about almost any of the spending. So for me, it was me telling them to stop buying almost all of the games, and them ignoring me.
Well now you're just confusing subjects. You were only a part of the analogy. I'm saying Republicans in Congress who oppose paying the bill are morons. Not you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://s11.postimg.org/genyoqcab/osha.png)
