Open thread July 1, 2012 Dan Crawford | July 1, 2011 7:07 pm Tags: open thread Comments (67) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
I listen to Car Talk every Saturday, or will until my local NPR station(WFSU in Tallahassee) runs out of money. Gov. Rick Scott vetoed its funding after the Fla legislature awarded it a grant of $400K in virtually unanimous votes in both houses. You may be interested to know that its news and political opinion programming is sponsored by Peterson, the Koch brothers and similar foundations. So, just in case you’ve never listened to Tom and Ray, here’s just one from their extensive collection of you-can’t-believe-it’s-so-bad jokes.
A woman brought a very limp duck into a veterinary surgeon. As she laid her pet on the table, the vet pulled out his stethoscope and listened to the bird’s chest.
After a moment or two, the vet shook his head sadly and said, “I’m sorry, your duck, Cuddles, has passed away.”
The distressed woman wailed, “Are you sure?”
“Yes, I am sure. The duck is dead,” replied the vet.
“How can you be so sure?” she protested. “I mean you haven’t done any testing on him or anything. He might just be in a coma or something.”
The vet rolled his eyes, turned around and left the room. He returned a few minutes later with a black Labrador retriever.
As the duck’s owner looked on in amazement, the dog stood on his hind legs, put his front paws on the examination table and sniffed the duck from top to bottom.
He then looked up at the vet with sad eyes and shook his head. The vet patted the dog on the head and took it out of the room. A few minutes later he returned with a cat. The cat jumped on the table and also delicately sniffed the bird from head to foot. The cat sat back on its haunches, shook its head, meowed softly and strolled out of the room.
The vet looked at the woman and said, “I’m sorry, but as I said, this is most definitely, 100% certifiably, a dead duck.”
The vet turned to his computer terminal, hit a few keys and produced a bill, which he handed to the woman. The duck’s owner, still in shock, took the bill. “150 dollars,” she cried, “150 dollars just to tell me my duck is dead!”
The vet shrugged, “I’m sorry. If you had just taken my word for it, the bill would have been $20, but with the Lab report and the CAT scan, it’s now $150.” TA DAH! NancyO
Uh, in case you haven’t noticed, there is a problem with the head of your Party. At his presser re. the debt ceiling crisis only a month away, he admonished the Congress to “get to work” (from a man who has spent the last 13 weekends golfing, is planning another vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, and has met only sparingly with members of Congress). He told them to they have to make the “hard choices” (like what hard choices?). And most ironically, that “leaders lead.”
His budget proposal gets voted down 97-0, and lies there, untouched.
Questions about Obama’s abilities, or lack thereof, have reached such proportions that WH spokesman actually has to state to the press that the President can, in fact, “walk and chew gum at the same time [pause for laughter].”
WHO THE HELL DID YOU GUYS FOIST UPON US!?
Sure do miss those horrible, terrible gawd awful Bush years.
You don’t appear to be very well informed, so you may not know that budget issues are Constitutionally required to originate in the House.
I love those guys!
I really do not understand what Right Wingers are so afraid of when it comes to NPR.
At least she didn’t get suckered into the $60,000 hippo replacement!
I know. Booooooooo.
I voted for Obama and I’m an independent voter. I would have probably voted for Clinton, but the voters killed her off in the primaries. I just couldn’t support McCain as it appeared he didn’t really care one way or the other. But I made a bad decision.
You’re being far too kind in your observations. Obama is a bigger failure. We should be adding up all the domestic (campaign) flights that he has undertaken since elected. It’s an endless stream of getaway trips. It’s astonishing. The lightweight news media doesn’t even call him on it.
Obama wasn’t prepared to serve as president. He doesn’t have a clue. He doesn’t understand his responsibilities. Instead, he pretends to serve as an imperial president. It’s laughable.
I really appreciate this site. Have only recently discovered it.
OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHH. GROOOOAAANNNNNN! NancyO
Ummmm. Want a foist? I’ll give you a foist! I give you……TA DAH…..George W Bush!
I don’t! heh heh NancyO
Come again, Miss Martha. The night is young, ain’t it, CoRev? NancyO
I wouldn’t describe this President as imperial. I would describe him as very self-assured and impervious to the views of people who aren’t from Harvard or Goldman Sachs. Meh. It could be worse. He could be Herbert Hoover…Oh, wait…NancyO
And, now for something completely different. In this history blog, the blogger quotes a Republican Congressman who was one of the 14th’s drafters explaining the majorities’ intent in the language of the 14th Amendment, section 4.
“…I have no doubt that every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the varying majorities which may arise in Congress. I consider that a very benficial proposition, which is not in the original proposition.”
There is a Constitutional bar to holding the debt hostage. Problem is there are no instructions in the amendment explaining what to do if one party threatens to violate this provision. NancyO
Your information appears to be a bit out of date. The Congressional Budget of 1974 sets out that the President’s Budget Proposal kicks off the budget process. This requires that the President work with Congress to develop a realistic framework for the House to develop its Budget Resolution. Obama did this so well that his Budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate, leaving the Congress rudderless.
Most President’s would have worked harder to craft a useful Budget Proposal, and all Presidents would have worked harder to broker a compromise once the process stalled. All Obama has done is golf, galivant, and unusefully flap his gums.
I love the headline, read the entire article, it is really much worse.
The supposedly non partisan Congress Budget Office (CBO) was sent off by a senate sub committee to figure out if it could make excuses to add more wasted funding to the already bloated pentagon five year [socialized profits] growth plan.
Some really good graphics using 2012 constant dollars to show how war spending has increased 74% over 2001, as Sen Inouye said yesterday.
I disagree that they should use higher rates of increase for the socialized profits of the military industrial congress complex’ troughers.
I do agree, and have seen it myself, when they observe the MICC “buys” are suffering extended infant mortalities (they never demand quality weapons, that are relaible), and from infant mortality the weapons go right into system wear out (the excuse for never achieving any level of quality or reliability, and paying for hugely expensive contracted support, see above post) with never a predictable set of costs to failed system performance.
And they suggest the pentagon is planning on spending too little to keep the fraud waste and abuse profitable!!!
Good thing none of these weapons are needed for any real adversary!!
What goes on between the two sides of the Potomoc over MICC welfare profits is entertaining were it not for the things that should be done with the wasted trillions.
I have to agree that Obama is not much of a leader.
Well that’s a pretty important part of the job description of President of the United States, don’t you think?
Well, maybe he is really good bringing about a consensus amongst various parties? In the absence of leadership skills that would be good qualification. No, he is horrible at that too.
Maybe he has some good ideas that others can develop and implement? Obama proposes ending tax deductions for corporate jets. OK, that’s .03% of the problem, only 99.97% to go.
Many times people can overcome their limitations through the dint of sheer HARD WORK. Hard work? Obama? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
WHAT THE HELL IS HE GOOD FOR?
The sooner we all admit that we have an incompentant poseur occupying the Oval Office, the sooner we can all try to make the appropriate arrangements. Yes, it is true, the truth will set us free.
Remember my w.a.g. prediction: the Dems will have Obama taken out via the birth certificate?
It was young then, but it is the morrow now. Says CoRev, pining away for those ole GW days.
For all the Bush haters out there, can you guess when we last had a primary budget surplus? Here’s a hint, the President’s initials were GWB(ush). Oops, gave away the answer, shucks.
Why are primary budget calculations so important? Because that has become the new target since Obama has more than doubled Bush’s total eight year deficits in less than three years.
For all the comments about the “Bush tax cuts” we hear nothing about the Obama tax cuts. ARRA is estimated to have cut revenues by $98B/year, and no matter how you slice the extension of the current tax cuts, that was an Obama decision coupled with the 2% FICA holiday.
I’m just shining the light of a few facts for the poor mislead democrats.
Have a good day, and holiday week end, Y’all.
CoRev–Ummm. Ya know, I suspect that not very many people here are gonna defend O to the last drop of campaign contributions. In a conversation earlier this week, I said that a Democratic president is important only for his Supreme Court nominations. That’s a neutral statement, after all. They could turn out like Crabby Appleton, rotten to the core. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Meanwhile, think TARP. Think BUSSSHHHHHEDDDD! NancyO
NanO, lessee, TARP, worked, cost very little, and wildly successful at stopping a financial melt down. That the one? 😉
And, the President’s Budget never sees the light of day. Right, sammy? These guys want to burn down the government. Great thinking. NancyO Mornin’, y’all.
Very little. Very little, you say. $300Billion USD’s and that’s a pittance? Oy! Well, I might think so if I had gotten a few billion here or there. But, I didn’t. And, that reminds me AIG hasn’t coughed up yet and that’s a lot of common stock we’re holding. But, I know what you’re gonna say next. Yep, Goldman Sachs is doing God’s work, right? NancyO
A news program by and for animals. NancyO
sadly, i pretty much agree with you about Obama. But all of the Republicans in sight are either insane or pretending to be.
wasn’t Bush’s primary budget surplus the result of the Clinton tax increase?
CoRev you are correct that almost nobody except Obama talks about Obama’s tax cuts. As I read it, during the 2008 campaign and in each of his FY budget proposals (for 2010, 2011, and 2012) he has sought to make the income tax rates more progressive than they were under Clinton, specifically by restoring Clinton rates for those making a quarter-million or more but not for those making less money. He has FAILED, primarily because the GOP in Congress has blocked the attempts. Instead of raising taxes on higher incomes, he has settled in negotiations for some tax cuts for the lower and middle income taxpayers (like the payroll tax holiday). That’s a consolation prize: he might cherish it but most others don’t even think about what you give to the loser.
I think the answer is no, Coberly, because in 2007 Net Interest exceeded the deficit for the unified/combined budget as reported in the historical tables of the President’s budget proposal. The “primary budget” normally refers to the unified/combined budget. It’s a useful concept to the degree that it tells us whether the government is living within its means, were it not for interest payments on all that debt from the past.
I know SS is your favorite subject, so I’ll mention that this Net Interest excludes interest paid to the SSTF, and the deficit of course is reduced by the SS surplus. On-budget net interest exceeded the on-budget deficit each fiscal year 1995-2001 (not true in 2007). So for seven years the primary budget had been balanced without considering SS surpluses.
This again sounds like the same stale argument we have between the likes of sammy and corev and the mix of all others. Where’s buff lately? The conversation verges on the absurd from time to time. Like sammy saying, “Uh, in case you haven’t noticed, there is a problem with the head of your Party.” and the rest of the paragraph that follows that childish comment. Whose party? The only good thing left to say about the Democratic Party is that it is certainly more expansive than the Republican Party. It’s current leadership, if the Executive Office can be seen to be such, is better described as the moderate wing of the Republican Party and one that is trying too hard to mollify its own extremist members. Still within the entire elected members of the Democratic Party one can still find members speaking out in favor of working people. They still have members with a progressive agenda. Unfortunately the party doesn’t have a forceful leadership. Obama has only very recently begun to express what every one else has recognized for two years now. That being that the Republican Party has no good interest at the heart of its rhetoric. It is persistently self contradictory. Its leadership speaks of balanced budgets and tax cuts all in a single breath. And the next word out is militarism personified.
We are in a sorry state with the current elected representatives that we have chosen. Nothiing good is being accomplished. One has to wonder what sector of the citizenship is being represented. Certainly not the vast majority, the workers, the middle class. Lip serivce is what we get a great deal of. Deceit and deception are the operative principles most at play. The Congress is a joke with no intention or ability to put together a budget that will serve the country well.
You forgot the rest of the story: doctor sends bill to Medicare/Medicaid/Insurance Company, so who cares?
how does that work without the ENRON accounting?
“the deficit is of course reduced by the SS surplus.”
that may be true, but it’s still a lie. the SS surplus is surplus to SS. when it’s borrowed by the “budget,” it is a debt to the budget. no matter what they say.
as for the “primary budget,” as MG will be the first to tell you I am no budget expert. But as someone who pays my own bills, I can assure you that the interest on the money I borrowed last year has to be part of my budget.
you didn’t ask me, but it is a mark of Obama’s incompetence, and the fact that we get the government we deserve, that they are cutting taxes while crying about the deficit. And if they are going to rescind the bush tax cuts, they need to rescind ALL of them, and stop pretending that the middle class and the poor poor are over taxed. That’s the same game the rich play, and they are better at it.
too true (and i know who that’s a picture of). only i’m not so sure the progressive democrats are for real either. it’s all a question of what lies your district wants to hear.
Even as the executive is likely to be flexible and give some ground for the sake of peace with the everyman the nobility is inflexible, unwilling to give any quarter and generally looking for yet more at the expense of all others. And so too do their representatives follow that same rigid and destructive inclination, and when the pressure builds to boiling and explosive force is released they wonder why the people were so impatient and so demanding. There have been historical exceptions. Lafayette was a hero to Americans and then so too to Frenchman, but it was too little too late by then.
Mark Thoma reprinted this piece from the WaPo today regarding the Long Depression. The resulting labor unrest, strikes, and other social upheaval strongly influenced the intellectual elite and the rich of the time to rethink the hard money austerian policies of the time.
Agree Coberly and True Lies is one of my favorite movies. Everybody seems to be aiming for a balanced primary budget, as CoRev said, and I wanted to know what that means. I believe it means we’ll ignore the fact that SS is off-budget, pretend the SS surplus is a gift, and pretend that we don’t pay interest on any debt including debt to the SSTF. If we can balance the budget with those helpful lies, then we’ll achieve something that we have only once achieved since 1995-2001.
Budget-balancers lowered the bar so they can say “I can do it” and now everyone prefers to use that bar. The highest bar, of course, is what we had in 1999 and 2000: an on-budget surplus, and SS surpluses, both being used to reduce debt to the public. That ended with the 2001 recession and your one-time $300-$600 rebate check from the IRS.
I found the answer to where the speech was given, and it does sound like legislative history and a mark of intent.
I have no problem rescinding ALL of the Bush tax cuts, Coberly. I think Obama should have done what you said so we conceivably might stop digging this hole. After that, I think we’ve dug deeply and we’ll need to strongly consider higher-than-Clinton rates at the top-end to get out of it. But first things first.
I’ve been thinking about the current stale mate between the President and the House regarding the debt ceiling and the budget deficit in general. This question comes to mind. As payments for various government expenditures come due what agency is it that actually writes the check, so to speak. Where does the power to pay a bill actually reside? I’m thinking that it is some branch or department of the Treasury Dept. That being the case who is to say that the Treasury Dept at the direction of the boss, that’s the President, can’t pay what ever bill comes due.
Furthermore, who is to decide in what order the government’s debts and other financial obligations are paid? For example, I heard it suggested that the President would have to decide on paying T-Note interest first rather than SS benefits. Is that actually required by some legislated process? Can the Executive Office decide what to pay for and in what order to make those payments? Given that SS has a dedicated revenue stream, the FICA deductions, why would such benefit payments have second place to interest on debt payment, an expense of the general budget. And in fact the SS Trust Fund would be one of the many creditors who might exercise a claim for interest due. Can the Executive Branch prioritize payment for accounts payable? If not, why not? What is there to interfere with the President directing the Treasury Dept regarding payment of such accounts payable whether for goods, services or programs? Can the President selectively determine which programs in which states and local districts receive payments due?
It occurs to me that given that the Treasury Dept is the paymaster of the government and that the Treasury Dept is under the direct control of the Executive Office it is the President who can authorize or withhold payments for all federal expenses across the country. If so, why not use that authority to reign in the obstacles to the President’s legislative efforts? Would the Republican leadership be more cooperative with a President that controlled where the money went and when it went there>
I think the Exec. controls the pay through the Sec. of the Treasury. There is a body of law called collectively the Fiscal Constitution that sets out in detail what every phrase of the law in appropriations bills means as far as who gets paid. when and how. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/GovernmentsShutdowns_10.pdf The Republican Congressional majority refuses to recognize the constitutional authority of the other branches of govt, esp the Exec. Also, it is largely ignorant of the laws concerning the budget etc. as described in the link above. It’s a honey badger Congress. It don’t give a @##$t. The result could be a real disaster. But never mind, they’ll still have a job and most of them are rich anyhow. NancyO
I’ve been trying to compare economic/budget performance between Bush and Obama with my comments about “primary surpluses/deficits’. Obama introduced that term as the goal for the Simpson/Bowles Commission, and therefore it is certainly worth while since it is an Obama/democratic measure.
Accordingly, I calculated Bush’s performance, and he had a surplus three of eight (37.5%) years in office. Of course, if we use Mike Kimel’s Presimetrics approach it was four of eight (50%) years in office.
Obama has no “primary surpluses” in the foreseeable future without a US treasuries collapse, and we are forced to sell at huge interest rates. Although not out of the question, and clearly possible with oft repeated the fear mongering commentary of “defaulting” on our debts.
We do have Obama to than for some lessons learned. Keynesian economics, if actually of values, can be really screwed up by novice politicians/economist. Liberal/democratic policies espoused vociferously for the past decade are really poor. Democrats prefer playing election politics over helping the country. There are many more lessons that will be highlighted as we get closer to the real elections.
As Sammy asked: What have you guys foisted upon us?
Earth to CoRev, come in please. Message from the world. No one gives a crap regarding any calculation you may have done or will do. Few give a crap about the relative performance of Bush and Obama, especially as calculated by you, CoRev. The Congress has become virtually dysfunctional and you are continuing to banter on about radiative performance of two relatively poor performers. One thing is certainly true and demonstrable by facts and figures, of which you are so enamored though so inadequate at portraying objectively, but selectively. Bush for eight years waged useless war and gave trillions in tax holiday to those who hardly deserve such largess.
We are concerned about the state of the economy, the distribution of income, the dearth of jobs and the eroding quality of financial life for most Americans. You on the other hand seem to car only about partisan blame and you’re none too accurate at that about who did what to whom and when it was done. The phrase is partisan hack. Look it up in your Funk & Wagnell’s or simply look into a mirror.
if you weren’t delusional you would have noticed that most of us are not great fans of Obama. nor are we rabid Democrats.
Obama seems to have bought the Republican line on finance and economics. Which would be bad enough if the R’s were even sane. But they are not.
You haven’t seen any liberal economic policies since Nixon left office.
As for who is playing elections politics, you’ve got to be kidding… or delusional.
Yesterday I posted a post on my blog that responds to George Will’s claim in his weekend Washington Post column that the auto bailout was a privatization of profits but a socialization of losses. The full post, which is at http://annarborist.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-beg-to-differ-in-part-mr-will.html, and is called “I Beg to Differ (in Part), Mr. Will,” says:
“In 1994, Bill Clinton proposed increasing homeownership through a ‘partnership’ between government and the private sector, principally orchestrated by Fannie Mae, a “government-sponsored enterprise” (GSE). It became a perfect specimen of what such “partnerships” (e.g., General Motors) usually involve: Profits are private, losses are socialized.”
—“Burning Down the House,” George F. Will, Washington Post, today
Will’s column discusses a new book by Getchen Morgenson and housing-finance expert Joshua Rosner that Will says “will introduce you to James A. Johnson, an emblem of the administrative state that liberals admire.” Johnson, for those of you who (like me) don’t instantly recognize the name, headed Fannie Mae during (I guess; Will doesn’t specify the dates) during the 1990s and early 2000s. He says the book details how Johnson and a few others, acting under the guise of compassion, used the government’s backing of Fannie and Freddie loans and the public policy of encouraging homeownership, to hugely enrich themselves.
“Morgenson and Rosner report that in 1998, when Fannie Mae’s lending hit $1 trillion, its top officials began manipulating the company’s results to generate bonuses for themselves. That year Johnson’s $1.9 million bonus brought his compensation to $21 million. In nine years, Johnson received $100 million.
“Fannie Mae’s political machine dispensed campaign contributions, gave jobs to friends and relatives of legislators, hired armies of lobbyists (even paying lobbyists not to lobby against it), paid academics who wrote papers validating the homeownership mania, and spread “charitable” contributions to housing advocates across the congressional map.”
But he also suggests, if I understand correctly, that it was Johnson and the other Fannie and Freddie folks, rather than the Wall Street crowd, who instituted the concept of securitized mortgages and credit default swaps—and (inferentially) then caused European banks to spur, say, the Irish housing bubble, which, last I heard, was not funded in any part by Fannie and Freddie. And he wrote the quote that opens this post, in which he claims that the government’s bailout—loans, most of which have been repaid—to GM and Chrysler have resulted in merely private profits. Unlike, y’know, the very substantial tax breaks given to […]
Jack, I mostly just gnore your rants for what they are, but since you want to play…. Weren’t you one of the vocal Bush haters? This comment would seem to confirm so: “?radiative? performance of two relatively poor performers
Bush for eight years waged useless war and gave trillions in tax holiday to those who hardly deserve such largess. ”
Since you just want to continue to spout the Dem talking points and igore the relative performance of our past two presidents, I add these cogent facts and data.
Obama added the new goal of “primary surplus/deficit” and since he and Dems appear to think it is meaningful, then why not compare?
As I have told you many times, please do the math. Once you actual do it and then accept the results, maybe your ideological thinking will be slightly altered. Nah, why even think that possible? Evidence and historical comments prove otherwise.
Beverly/coberly/jack et al.
You all are always frustrated at the inability of government policymakers to direct the economy properly, for whatever reason. It’s because you all are lookin’ for love in all the wrong places.
Here is one lib that is starting to see the light: “For the last few weeks, I’ve been unable to get a startling statistic out of my head: Since the recession officially ended, Texas has created more than 4 of every 10 new jobs in America.”
“That’s right, Texas: the reddest of red states, home to gun lovers and school textbooks that openly question whether the Founding Fathers intended for the separation of church and state. I am no ideologue. Still, whenever I get political, I tend to tilt reflexively to the left, making the jobs figure a bit disconcerting at first.”
“But there’s no escaping it. The number is real. Which means that if you care about putting people back to work at a time when nearly 14 million in this country are unemployed, maybe Texas has something to teach us.”
that could be a fair point and it shouldn’t go unanswered, but since you and others have a penchant for singlepoint analysis, i think you ought to spell out the texas miracle a little further. what jobs, what policies.. or non-policies…
Click on the link.
life is hard. and facts are complex.
if you can’t make an argument for your own case, why should i waste my time looking for one.
Here’s what the lib says: “At the same time — and this, of course, is the tough part for those on the left to swallow — it is clear that the state’s limits on taxes, regulations and lawsuits are contributing to the job machine”
but i was hoping for a little more substance.
y’know. names, dates, the the perp have any scars or tatoos?
As one might expect the explanation of jobs growth is not so somple as the simple minded might have us beleive. There are other interpretations of how these events come to be.
The stroy is always more complex than the simple minded would have us all believe.
i suspected as much… being a true believer in the life is complex theory.
but to be fair to Sammy, i should ask you for a few details to save me the trouble of clicking on the link (something that is far more complex for me than for you young folks with young computers. and anyway it’s good for you to learn to write a compelling abstract.)
Jack, I hope you read the articles. There was a common thread: 1) available energy resources, and 2) investment in education. The only problem with the education scenario is that it occurred ~30 Yrs ago, and to carry the impact forward to this recession might be a stretch. Number one, available energy resources, however, is ongoing and continuous for generations so its impacts are more easily estimated.
Easy estimation becomes even more possible when we compare national energy policies with those of Texas. There the difference is quite obvious. One state is exporting enormous amounts of energy and energy raw resources, and the nation is diminishing new sources of production and stifling development. Another economically successful part of the world, Scandinavia, which has well weathered this recession is similar to Texas in exporting energy and energy raw resources. that is also true for Canada, and surely the oil exporting countries of the Middle East.
Maybe we should reconsider our national energy policies. There is ample evidence to indicate that a policy supporting increased production and development is a viable alternative to what we are practicing today.
Another interesting report, the 7th Evaluation Report for ARRA has some interesting conclusions.
As of this report we have spent $666B of the original amount.
For that amount of money we have created 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs.
That means each job has cost us $277,500 to $185,000 each. Not too effective.
Additionally, it claims that the GDP was larger by as much as 3.2%. If you remember the discussions surrounding ARRA, the CEA memebers, particularly Christine Romer claimed a +%1 multiplier for each ARRA dollar spent. Well, ARRA was ~4.9% of the GDP and it increased only 3.2%. That is far less than +$1.
Some might point out that Keynesian economics are not performing as expected.
Great idea CoRev
maybe we should invest in putting oil under the rest of the country so we can develop a policy that encourages exporting energy and raw resources. Look at how well that worked for the rest of the world.
And no doubt we could find something productive for your daughter to do. After all, if you can’t make money out of it, it isn’t worth anything, is it?
I can see where all that education stuff 30 years ago is not having any effect on the economy today…. or is it?
I suppose that selective interpretation is the way that you, CoRev, deal with contradictions to your personal ideological bias and the arguments you concoct from there. Two simple sentences explain the lie to your distortions or lack of comprehension.
“The state also has immense natural resources, which benefit greatly from rising energy prices and breakthroughs in natural gas production. Exports are exploding.
As for taxes, the state actually raised taxes almost 25 years ago to invest in education. Rather than hurt the state, that set the table for job expansion.
Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/14/3152456/story-of-texas-job-growth-not.html#ixzz1RG7ZXr1D
i don’t imagine I know much more about “keynesian economics” than you do. But if you are saying that stimulating the economy by giving tax breaks to people who are sitting on their money is not working, I could have told you that.
Jack, I noted the sentence you quoted. What makes you think the country with the largest energy raw resources, that’s the US, could not perform better, just like Texas, if we had polices that were meant to take advantage of those raw resources?
You obviously missed it, but the points made in your quoted sentence was my point.
“What makes you think the country with the largest energy raw resources, that’s the US, could not perform better, just like Texas, if we had polices that were meant to take advantage of those raw resources?”
And we don’t now have such policies? Are you completely blind, stupid or rabid? The Gulf is a result of those policies. So too the flaming faucets in various fracking areas. The tax preferences to energy companies contributors to our deficit that you claim to be so concerned about. There is nothing that goes on in the USofA that doesn’t take the preferences of the energy industry into account to their advantage.
I’m curious. Is CoRev a short hand for counter revolutionary? There needs to be a revolution for one to be counter to. Yet another indication of your lack of contact with the realities of your environment, both physical and ideological.
Jack this quote is from another paper you wouldn’t read the Washington Times.
“In an ideal world, it would make economic sense to acquire fossil fuels from least-cost producers no matter where on the globe they are located. But this is not an ideal world. What makes no sense in such a climate is continuing to rely on unreliable foreign energy suppliers, especially when Congress’ own research service estimates that the United States has more proven energy reserves – coal, oil and natural gas – than any other nation on the planet.
Rather than exploiting these abundant domestic resources, the Obama administration (1) all but shut down expansion of energy production in the Gulf of Mexico for more than a year, (2) failed to follow through on promises to open areas in Alaska and on the Eastern and Western seaboards for drilling permits and (3) plans to slow and possibly halt development of the nation’s hundred-year supply of natural gas, some of which has been discovered only recently in Pennsylvania and neighboring states.
Such policies have sacrificed billions of dollars in unrealized economic growth, unnecessary job losses and deficits larger than they would be otherwise in our international trade balance.”
From here: “http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/4/obama-undermines-hope-for-energy-independence/
Deliberate sabotage of domestic power couldn’t be more successful”
In answer to your quest re: do we have such policies? No! many times over NO! The Gulf blowout was an accident. The flaming faucets are from areas of high density gas deposits, and many were flaming well before fracking. Gas seepage is rampant in those areas.
Finally saying that there is nothing that doesn’t take the preferences of the energy industry into account to their advantage. Is just silly rhetoric. Energy is the basis for any economic activity. Cheap energy is a competitive advantage. Cheap energy is what made us advance as rapidly in the past. High priced energy is what is costing economic advantage over many of our economic competitors.
Yes, CoRev is a contraction of counter revolutionary.
“The Gulf blowout was an accident.” An astounding understatement. BP is now busy suing its partners in that oil drilling disaster. Hell of an accident. I guess that the earth quake and resulting tsunami was an accident as well and the people of northern Japan should just accept that accidents do happen. The Gulf is filled with hundreds of active and inactive wells that continue to leach oil into its waters. No big deal. Just part of the cost of energy. Here’s a list of “accidents” resulting in oil spills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills
Use of quotes from the Washington Times is appropriate in your case. Do you attend church services with the Reverend Moon as well? Good to see your choice of news source is so reliably unbiased. And what revolution are you countering? Would that be the sexual revolution of the ’60s? Or the information revolution of the 21st century?
Jack, you’re not serious! You said: “I guess that the earth quake and resulting tsunami was an accident as well and the people of northern Japan should just accept that accidents do happen.” Do you actually think that you or any of us can stop them? Plate tectonics are caused by man?
The Gulf leeches oil naturally, not from the oil wells. You did know that didn’t you? It actually leeched more oil than any spills up til the BP explosion. I’m not sure if that number/ratio has changed because of that accident. An accident’s impact that has all but disappeared.
Ranting about a source, the WaTimes, shows a lack of argument.
“Plate tectonics are caused by man?” No, but whne you build a nuclear reactor and tell the sorrounding population that it is safe against any such upheaval it might be smart to keep the cooling towers out of the basement and otherwise actually spend what it takes to make those reactors safe in an earthquake area. Oh, I almost forgot, private enterprise is free to risk our lives in order to save on the considerable cost of safety.
“The Gulf leeches oil naturally, not from the oil wells.” And that excuses the destruction caused by “accidental” spills like the BP disaster? There’s a difference between the incidences of oil seepage and that of a sudden release as occurs in an “accidental” spill. Read what an expert has to say on the issue.
“But there are also some important differences between these situations—and many reasons why the environmental impact of a man-made spill is hardly comparable to that of oil leaked from natural seeps. For one, the biological communities around natural seeps have developed and adapted to the presence of oil over hundreds or thousands of years. When oil spills from a tanker or oil rig, on the other hand, biological communities that haven’t had to deal with oil before are suddenly exposed to it at high concentrations. “At underwater seeps, you’ve already got luxuriant concentrations of microbes who depend on that seep as a carbon source and are very good at chewing it up in place, but you don’t have any of that when a catastrophic release like [the one in the Gulf of Mexico] occurs,” says Jeffrey Short, who spent decades studying oil spills as a chemist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and is now Pacific science director at Oceana. “You’re just exposing a naive biological community to an extraordinarily damaging change all at once.”
Use of the Washington Times as a source of informed opinion without attribution to an original source shows a propensity to grasp at straws when trying to make an unsupportable argument. What revolution was that that you are counter to? We haven’t had a political revolution here in about two hundred and fifty years. There was a revolution against slavery which I supposed you may have been counter to, but we think of that as a civil war. I’ve been watching TV and I haven’t seen any reports of a revolution. Was it not televised?
So Jack, saying this: “ Oh, I almost forgot, private enterprise is free to risk our lives in order to save on the considerable cost of safety.” implies a significant number of deaths from the Nuke power plant failures in Japan. AFAIK, that significant number is zero.
Here’s an interesting finding re: US Nuke Power generation: “So while people in the United States have been killed in non-commercial plants and in non-nuclear areas of a commercial plant, Alexander is right that no has been killed “by commercial nuclear power.” And those statistics and the most complete numbers we can find for other energy sources confirm his claim that it is a record unmatched by other fuels. So we find his claim True.”
From here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/lamar-alexander/facts-risks-nuclear-power-plants/
Also, it appears that your contention: “ There’s a difference between the incidences of oil seepage and that of a sudden release as occurs in an “accidental” spill.: has been disproved by reality. Where’s the oil? Another informed opinion gone astray.
I’m sure that the people living along the Guld coast will be relieved to hear of your assurances, especially couched in that well worn phrase, “accidents will happen.” Property will be despoiled and health will be deteriorated and some people will die, but what can you do? Accidents will happen, and the harm done is especially severe when proper safety practices take second place to cost considerations. Accidents will happen and so long as you are not personally affected you can apparently find some excuse for, or amelioration of, the harm done. You seem to have little or no concern for the suffering that people experience at the hand of incompetence and disregard. Are you sure you’re not really Cantab under a new name?