|
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. |
WASHINGTON -- As West Virginians continue to deal with the aftermath of a chemical spill that left hundreds of thousands without safe tap water, some Pennsylvanians are now worried about their water supply, too.
On Jan. 9, West Virginians in a nine-county region were told not to use their tap water after 10,000 gallons of 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) and PPH spilled from a storage facility owned by Freedom Industries into the Elk River. The river is about a mile and a half upstream from the intake for West Virginia American Water, the water source for the area.
Soon afterwards, state officials demanded that the remaining chemicals be removed from the site. More than 3,000 gallons of MCHM, which is used to wash coal, was moved to a coal processing plant in Armstrong County, Pa. But according to local news reports, neither Pennsylvania regulators nor public officials knew that the chemicals were being transferred to Rosebud Mining's facility.
Like thousands of other chemicals, there are very few regulations at either the state or federal level for using and storing MCHM. Thus, there was no requirement to notify Pennsylvania officials before moving the chemicals there.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office.
you realize a big recession also hurts govt revenue right? oh and tax cuts
|
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will push a 60-vote threshold, meaning he's threatening to filibuster, on a clean debt ceiling increase extension.
Cruz's office confirmed the Texas senator's plans to TPM on Tuesday afternoon.
Cruz's move means lawmakers will need to rally 60 votes in the chamber to pass the bill, and Democrats only control 55 votes.
The announcement came the same day that House Republicans dropped a previous debt ceiling increase proposal and embraced a clean hike instead.
Source
|
On February 12 2014 08:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will push a 60-vote threshold, meaning he's threatening to filibuster, on a clean debt ceiling increase extension.
Cruz's office confirmed the Texas senator's plans to TPM on Tuesday afternoon.
Cruz's move means lawmakers will need to rally 60 votes in the chamber to pass the bill, and Democrats only control 55 votes.
The announcement came the same day that House Republicans dropped a previous debt ceiling increase proposal and embraced a clean hike instead. Source
This is really, really transparent as to what he's doing. I guess it's really for the non-informed "tea party" people though...
|
I'd almost rather get the 67 votes to just remove cruz from the senate, not quite, but almost.
|
The legal team representing the office of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has in recent days asked officials in both Fort Lee, N.J. and Hoboken, N.J. to turn over records of their interactions with reporters covering the multiple Christie scandals.
Randy Mastro, the high-priced defense attorney retained by Christie's office, on Monday filed an open records request with the borough of Fort Lee, the town affected in September by the George Washington Bridge lane closures.
Mastro's request, which was obtained by TPM, asks for all documents and correspondence held by Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich and his staff related to the lane closures (which the request calls a "toll/lane realignment"), endorsements of Christie, meetings with members of Christie's re-election campaign, and the topic of access lanes to the bridge, generally. It also requests "all documents that Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich or members of his staff provided to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or other local or national print, internet, or television media since September 1, 2013 through the Present, regarding any of the above subjects." Fort Lee officials are currently reviewing the records request.
Mastro was hired to help Christie's office produce documents for the multiple investigations into the lane closures. But he is also helping the governor's office with its internal review of the incident.
Source
|
the last Cruz 'master plan' was the shutdown which blew up in the Republicans face.
I for one am ready to get some popcorn and enjoy the show.
|
On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office.
The deficit is estimated for 514 billion in 2014. If you blame him for increasing the deficit, you have to say Obama's done an extraordinary job reducing what Bush left him. (Source: CBO)
|
what I don't get is how all of this filibustering is going to help to reduce the debt. If the debt on my house is too high setting it on fire won't help.
|
On February 12 2014 09:23 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The deficit is estimated for 514 billion in 2014. If you blame him for increasing the deficit, you have to say Obama's done an extraordinary job reducing what Bush left him. (Source: CBO)
Give him credit? The report also says this deficit reduction is only temporary and it will rise again beyond 2015 because of slow economic growth with high unemployment rate. Guess what that means - more Gov't spending. What exactly has Obama done that deserves a praise?
|
On February 12 2014 09:39 Nyxisto wrote:
what I don't get is how all of this filibustering is going to help to reduce the debt. If the debt on my house is too high setting it on fire won't help.
Because its not about the debt, its about re-election.
Think like that and a lot more actions in US politics makes sense.
|
On February 12 2014 09:39 Nyxisto wrote:
what I don't get is how all of this filibustering is going to help to reduce the debt. If the debt on my house is too high setting it on fire won't help.
Not much on the debt will change unless Democrats get serious about reforming the entitlement programs. Getting out of Afgan will help but not by much as long as there is a serious terrorism threat against US interests.
|
On February 12 2014 09:48 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 09:39 Nyxisto wrote:
what I don't get is how all of this filibustering is going to help to reduce the debt. If the debt on my house is too high setting it on fire won't help. Not much on the debt will change unless Democrats get serious about reforming the entitlement programs. Getting out of Afgan will help but not by much as long as there is a serious terrorism threat against US interests.
If you think that foodstamps are more expensive than the war I think you should check your numbers again.(Hint: the war is a little more expensive)
|
Indeed war is expensive; why are people so willing to spend piles of dollars on troops when you could just hire locals for a pittance instead? Sure locals are less reliable and less well equipped by far, but they're also faaaar cheaper to pay, and a lot of fighters are less loyal to a cause than to a paycheck.
Also hiring for noncombat purposes just to have people more on your side.
For the cost of operations in afghanistan we could have hired half the country, literally. Not taking advantage of things like that is just silly.
|
On February 12 2014 08:21 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The phrase "last full year in office" is a creative way of ignoring the fact that the overwhelming part of that budget was entirely on Bush. In fact of that 1.4T deficit from his final year and part of Obamas first only 200B was considered from the stimulus So 1.2T of the deficit was entirely from the former presidents budget and not the current presidents one. I know quoting 400B to 1T sounds nicer when saying its Obamas fault that the deficit went up but a fairer comparison is 1.2T (1.4-200B for stimulus) to 1T and I believe 400-600B this year so he cut the deficit in half is a more fair way of saying it. I know what you're saying, but the stimulus package was passed by Obama in FY 2009 ... his deficits started growing then. If we take the bush 2008 budget to have the neighborhood of 200-240 billion deficit, the Obama stimulus package already matched and doubled that (170 billion CBO estimate 2009 alone). Then we're talking the full cost of 2.5 trillion package. It's like you somehow stick the stimulus on Bush for the 8 months Obama was in office, because his budget had that deficit.
Luckily for Obama, he's reaping the falling expenditures of stimulus, TARP, jobless benefits running out, TARP bailouts running off the books. Like his friends beforehand, he'll take credit for every piece of good news, whether it is growth in fossil fuels, or the expiration of extraordinary government supports put in place.
I don't know what other extra-constitutional and constitutional delays will be put into Obamacare, but once its glorious day of full implementation arrives, we'll see what new explanations are put into place about the budget deficit.
|
On February 12 2014 09:39 Nyxisto wrote:
what I don't get is how all of this filibustering is going to help to reduce the debt. If the debt on my house is too high setting it on fire won't help. What filibuster? Do you mean the budget passed by the House that did not fund Obamacare that was not passed by the Senate?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2014 10:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:21 Adreme wrote:On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The phrase "last full year in office" is a creative way of ignoring the fact that the overwhelming part of that budget was entirely on Bush. In fact of that 1.4T deficit from his final year and part of Obamas first only 200B was considered from the stimulus So 1.2T of the deficit was entirely from the former presidents budget and not the current presidents one. I know quoting 400B to 1T sounds nicer when saying its Obamas fault that the deficit went up but a fairer comparison is 1.2T (1.4-200B for stimulus) to 1T and I believe 400-600B this year so he cut the deficit in half is a more fair way of saying it. I know what you're saying, but the stimulus package was passed by Obama in FY 2009 ... his deficits started growing then. If we take the bush 2008 budget to have the neighborhood of 200-240 billion deficit, the Obama stimulus package already matched and doubled that (170 billion CBO estimate 2009 alone). Then we're talking the full cost of 2.5 trillion package. It's like you somehow stick the stimulus on Bush for the 8 months Obama was in office, because his budget had that deficit. Luckily for Obama, he's reaping the falling expenditures of stimulus, TARP, jobless benefits running out, TARP bailouts running off the books. Like his friends beforehand, he'll take credit for every piece of good news, whether it is growth in fossil fuels, or the expiration of extraordinary government supports put in place. I don't know what other extra-constitutional and constitutional delays will be put into Obamacare, but once its glorious day of full implementation arrives, we'll see what new explanations are put into place about the budget deficit.
TIL policies have no trailing effects so when u get out of office everything is the other guy's fault now
|
On February 12 2014 10:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 09:48 jellyjello wrote:On February 12 2014 09:39 Nyxisto wrote:
what I don't get is how all of this filibustering is going to help to reduce the debt. If the debt on my house is too high setting it on fire won't help. Not much on the debt will change unless Democrats get serious about reforming the entitlement programs. Getting out of Afgan will help but not by much as long as there is a serious terrorism threat against US interests. If you think that foodstamps are more expensive than the war I think you should check your numbers again.(Hint: the war is a little more expensive)
According to this wikipedia article Defense spending accounted for 19% of the budget in 2012. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security accounted for 23% and 22% respectively.
If you cut the entire defense budget for 2012 the US would still have had a deficit.
|
The deficit is entirely driven by the condition of the labor market. Wage income taxes decide how much money the government has coming in (income tax and FICA). It isn't the president moving a lever. When more people have jobs (2000) the deficit goes away. When people lose their jobs (2008-2009) the deficit explodes. In 2007, the CBO was projecting the deficit would be gone in 2009.
Washington can nibble around the edges of the deficit (the recent minor tax changes and the recent minor discretionary budget cuts), but the labor market is the real driver here.
Accordingly, we ought ignore the deficit. Policy should focus entirely on getting people employed. Deficit be damned.
PS: when the treasury bond interest rate is this low, GOV should go into debt. Let the market tell GOV when to stop going into debt.
|
On February 12 2014 10:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:21 Adreme wrote:On February 12 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote:
They pass the Public Debt Acts to give the treasury a little flexibility handling debts, where prior that was constitutionally (Article 1) given to Congress for every debt. Delegate a little power to the treasury, keep the reigns in Congress, so to speak. Now its just part of the brinkmanship doctrine; Republican leadership promising their base to raise a fight at the next debt ceiling and budget ... hoping the more gullible of their electorate gives them a pass when they refuse to fight on big spending bills. It's not the right way to go about it, but in today's demonization regime, it is supposed to avoid some of those wild accusations on spending bills that Republicans are against the poor, the aged, children, etc.
Last full fiscal year Bush was in office, deficit stood at 458.6 billion (CBO). Quick reminder, stimulus was February 2009, the month after Obama was inaugurated. CBO's final release for 2012 declares it at $1.087 trillion. We'll see if 2013's revised figures writes Obama's 5year success story. Until then, Obama increased the deficit by 628$ billion in first 4 years in office. The phrase "last full year in office" is a creative way of ignoring the fact that the overwhelming part of that budget was entirely on Bush. In fact of that 1.4T deficit from his final year and part of Obamas first only 200B was considered from the stimulus So 1.2T of the deficit was entirely from the former presidents budget and not the current presidents one. I know quoting 400B to 1T sounds nicer when saying its Obamas fault that the deficit went up but a fairer comparison is 1.2T (1.4-200B for stimulus) to 1T and I believe 400-600B this year so he cut the deficit in half is a more fair way of saying it. I know what you're saying, but the stimulus package was passed by Obama in FY 2009 ... his deficits started growing then. If we take the bush 2008 budget to have the neighborhood of 200-240 billion deficit, the Obama stimulus package already matched and doubled that (170 billion CBO estimate 2009 alone). Then we're talking the full cost of 2.5 trillion package. It's like you somehow stick the stimulus on Bush for the 8 months Obama was in office, because his budget had that deficit. Luckily for Obama, he's reaping the falling expenditures of stimulus, TARP, jobless benefits running out, TARP bailouts running off the books. Like his friends beforehand, he'll take credit for every piece of good news, whether it is growth in fossil fuels, or the expiration of extraordinary government supports put in place. I don't know what other extra-constitutional and constitutional delays will be put into Obamacare, but once its glorious day of full implementation arrives, we'll see what new explanations are put into place about the budget deficit.
I agree there were reasons for the 1.4T dollar deficit in 2009 (of which 200B you can put on Obama) but pretending that 1.2T of that is not on the former president and just using the previous years numbers and ignore his true final budget in order to make it seem like the trend was different then it was is just dishonest.
As you did point out there were a lot of reasons that caused the deficit to spike for that year (I would also include falling tax revenue in there) but most of those issues continued on and have of course been declining thus leading to a falling deficit.
Final point EVERY politician democrat or republican will take credit for every good thing that happens and place blame to someone else for every bad thing so when you tell me that grandstanding is a one party thing I find it a little strange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
