Political Discussion

[msm859]

That is a ridiculous statement. While I am not opposed to some tax increases, coupled with some reform, we certainly can balance the budget with spending cuts.

If I spend $10 and take in $7, I can balance the budget by cutting spending to $7. People might find it distasteful, and it might not be politically viable considering the large portion of the population dependent on government instead of producing something. But spending across the board and you can balance the budget without increased revenue. It can be done with reforms to the big spending programs, SS, medicare, medicaid, defense.

Good luck with getting one party to talk about cutting defense. But I will cut to the chase. I don't believe we can balance the budget without letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. What is your position on the Bush tax cuts?

[GoingDown]

And in response, 38 climate and earth scientists signed a letter to the editor saying in part:





You can read the entire letter at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...727472662.html

Those 16 scientist are in the very small minority. Many are reported to have ties to the oil and gas industry: http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-new...stry-influence

I know that the global warming alarmist don't want any dissent or any alternative views expressed, and quite simply, if any scientists dares to express his doubts about man-made global warming, he will soon see his government funding evaporate into thin air.

Science should always be open to debate. It should also be open to different voices expressing their point of view.

If you look at the whole global warming agenda, it seems mainly like a plan to redistribute America's wealth to third world countries. They know that China is not going to stop burning coal and oil and spewing out "greenhouse" gasses. What good will it do if we unilaterally stop using fossil fuels, if China keeps on using them?

And here's the real question I have for people like you.... Do you want to pay a lot more for gas for your car and a lot more for electricity? How much of your discretionary income are you willing to pay for energy? As energy and transportation gets more expensive, so will the cost of food and really everything. Do you want to pay more for everything? Are you okay with having major electricity blackouts and not having reliable electricity 24 hours a day?

Personally speaking, I'd rather take my chances with global warming than what the environmentalists have planned for us-- a world where everything costs a lot more and our standard of living is diminished to the point where we are living like those people in the third world.

[chrisdfw]

Well if you have you PhD in economics and taxes I am surprised you are simply talking about cutting "spending measures". We will NEVER balance the budget without increased revenue.

That is a ridiculous statement. While I am not opposed to some tax increases, coupled with some reform, we certainly can balance the budget with spending cuts.

If I spend $10 and take in $7, I can balance the budget by cutting spending to $7. People might find it distasteful, and it might not be politically viable considering the large portion of the population dependent on government instead of producing something. But spending across the board and you can balance the budget without increased revenue. It can be done with reforms to the big spending programs, SS, medicare, medicaid, defense.

[GoingDown]

Unit 4 at the Springerville Generating Station began commercial operations in December and has been running at full throttle since then, burning about 60 rail cars' worth of coal a day from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.

The plant supplies low-cost electricity to the non-profit utility, but because of the stiff fight required to get it built, cost overruns and threat of global warming, some experts wonder if it will be the last new coal plant built in Arizona

legislation proposed by Congress to limit greenhouse-gas pollution could also make running the plant even more expensive...

David Areghini, SRP's associate general manager of power, said it would be nearly impossible to permit another coal-fired plant.

Arizona Public Service Co. has ruled out more power from coal...

"Most people will tell you, unless something changes, there probably won't be another coal plant," said Bill Rihs, the manager of major projects for SRP who oversaw Unit 4's construction. "That depends a lot on future regulations like cap-and-tax (greenhouse-gas legislation), which doesn't make it attractive for us or anyone else to develop a coal plant."

It's clear from the way SRP announced the Springerville plant that utilities view coal as a necessary evil needed to provide around-the-clock power, while generating environmental controversy.

When SRP announced Unit 4's commercial operations in December, it simply sent a press release stating the coal plant was up and running.

It hardly compared with the fanfare that greeted the state's first wind farm a couple of months prior, even though the coal plant cost 10 times as much and will generate about 25 times the amount of power throughout the year.

The Dry Lake Wind Power Project is in the same area and also sends all its electricity to SRP. The dedication ceremony drew political dignitaries from across the state and even U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. But getting Unit 4 built at Springerville was arguably a much larger accomplishment for SRP, considering the effort it took.

SRP and Tri-State Generation and Transmission of Denver had to pay to add environmental controls to Springerville's Units 1 and 2 before getting the required Environmental Protection Agency permits to build Units 3 and 4. SRP's share of the upgrades was $28.8 million.

Tucson Electric Power finished the first two units in 1985 and 1990, and the third opened for Tri-State in 2006.

SRP takes 100 megawatts from Unit 3 and all 400 from Unit 4, which is enough to power about 100,000 homes.

With the power from Unit 4, SRP has been able to shut down some of its natural-gas burning plants in the Phoenix area for the winter because their power is not needed.

"This is much less expensive to run," Rihs said.

Electricity from Unit 4 costs 30 to 50 percent less than energy SRP would have to buy on the market, according to SRP.

Unit 4 also has a $2 million silo that will use a carbon-injection system to clean mercury emissions from the plant, but it is not used yet because it is not required. The expansion with Units 3 and 4 faced opposition from environmental groups such as the Grand Canyon Trust in Flagstaff.

To get the new plant built, SRP also agreed to set aside a $5 million fund for renewable-energy projects in northern Arizona, and the Grand Canyon Trust is helping the utility decide which projects the money will fund.

"Even though we intervened to stop the construction and we lost, the settlement contained important concessions," said Roger Clark, a program director with the Grand Canyon Trust, which fought the permit at the Arizona Corporation Commission and also challenged the permit in court.

"They had to clean up the old plants and make the new ones less dirty, and create the renewable-energy investment fund," he said.

Unit 4 was originally estimated at $643 million but it was built during a time when labor and material prices escalated quickly, Areghini said.

First SRP added about $78 million in design improvements from the similar Unit 3 that had just been constructed.

SRP also paid about $100 million more to build the plant on a short schedule, and the escalating price of labor and materials during the 2005-06 timeframe cost an additional $188 million, he said.

When compared with coal-fired plants that were commissioned and completed in the same time period, from Arkansas, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, Texas and other locations, Areghini said Springerville's costs were average and that overruns were common at the time because of labor and material prices.

"The industry was extremely busy," Areghini said. "Even (Hurricane) Katrina carryover was sopping up labor."

Hogan's group acts as a watchdog of SRP's power rates and he also served as the attorney for the Grand Canyon Trust and the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies when they challenged the permit for Unit 4 in the early 2000s.

"At the time, it was clear there was going to be some form of additional expense associated with carbon, and they didn't factor that in at all," Hogan said.

Clark said that with coal-fired plants in New Mexico, Nevada and Pennsylvania struggling with their permits or being canceled, it's unlikely Arizona will see another after Springerville.

[msm859]

Then we agree, he lied and raised taxes on people making less than 250k, unless you believe nobody making less than 250k smokes. Or uses tanning beds.

On Sept. 12, 2008, while on the campaign trail in Dover, N.H., Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see ANY FORM of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." emphasis added

This doesn't even touch on the fact that there will be a tax on people who don't have health insurance, and unless you believe nobody under 250,000 income will lack health insurance.



Already got the PhD and my field of study is economics and taxes, so I hardly believe the basic study course will help. Keynesian economics is fine as a study of macro-economics, but ignores the behavioral issues of what happens when you create a welfare state, prop up too big to fail banks, and generally provide incentives to not produce, but rather become an economic drag.

Obama could have vetoed any spending measure, he elected not to. He shares blame with congress for adding a trillion a year or more in debt

Well if you have you PhD in economics and taxes I am surprised you are simply talking about cutting "spending measures". We will NEVER balance the budget without increased revenue. It seems clear that the sweet spot were the tax rates we had under Clinton. Brought in enough revenue for a budget surplus AND was not too high to be a drag on the economy - in fact the economy was as strong as ever. The other major systemic problem is over the last 30 years virtually all of the growth in income and wealth has gone to the top few percent. Again without a strong middle class we will not balance the budget. When people complain that 50% of the people don't pay taxes (federal income) they should be upset -- upset that so many people do not make enough to be in a taxable bracket. The "welfare state" whatever that means, is NOT the problem.

[GoingDown]

The utility firms had years to get their act together. Maybe a compromise is in order. Arizona will agree to compensate states for air pollution related costs such as increased health care costs affected by their dirty air.

.

The green movement has also had many years to come up with a viable alternative to fossil fuels, and the best they can seem to come up with is solar and wind power?

Is that all?

Just Solar? The sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day.

And Wind? It is not windy all day, every day.

The green movement has made it quite clear that they do not like natural gas fracking. They don't like nuclear power. They don't even like hydropower dams because it impedes the places where fish can swim. There's even some talk of tearing down dams in Oregon and Arizona.

Do you have any practical, reliable, and cheap sources of electricity to replace coal?

You want us to jump away from coal, but there is nothing to jump to at this point.

It doesn't make sense.

And it will kill what is left of this economy.

If you raise the price of energy, you raise the price of everything.

And if you get it to the point where we can no longer rely on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week of reliable electricity then just think of what that will do to all of us. We will be just like South Africa.

Is that what you want?

And just keep in mind, if Arizona doesn't burn that coal (using clean scrubbing technology by the way), China will buy the coal, ship it to China and burn it in their power plants anyways, and they don't use any clean scrubbing technology.

[tobee43]

and on and on we go...i like the way this is put.....and not TB OT.......

"Bankruptcy and the Presidential Election"

"It’s that time again: two candidates, with very different political views, vying to be the leader of our nation. But what does this mean for Bankruptcy?

Four years ago, part of Obama’s platform included passing a bankruptcy reform bill that would allow Chapter 13 judges to have the power, under limited and appropriate circumstances, to modify the first mortgage or deed of trust on a family’s home. That would probably have gone a long way towards saving the housing crisis. It wasn’t supported by the Republicans and never made it out of Congress.


It is not included in the 2012 Democratic platform. In fact, it’s nowhere to be found 4 years later.


There is no mention of bankruptcy reform that I could find in the Democrat’s platform. There are discussions of strengthening the economy, creating jobs, regulating big banking interests, and protecting consumers. But no mention of help for those persons needing bankruptcy.



The Republicans fought against bankruptcy reform (successfully) four years ago. And there is no mention in their platform of doing anything different now.

Their platform contains language about privatizing the mortgage industry to bring about “fairness.” They talk about reducing Federal regulations including deregulation of the banking and mortgage industries. And, although there is language about it being important to protect consumers and restore the middle class, there is, at least as far as I could find, no plan or program for how to do that other than by de-regulation and reducing taxes.

So, who do you vote for, if your primary concern is the economy and consumer rights? The Republicans promise that lowering taxes will create larger profits for businesses with which they will hire more employees, raise wages and stipulate the economy. The Democrats promise they can bring back the middle class and help consumers by regulation.

Which offers the most promise? I don’t know. But it looks to me like there will be little help for those among us needing bankruptcy relief."

[chrisdfw]

Obama has LOWERED taxes. SCHIP helps our children get health care it was paid for buy a tax on cigarettes.

Then we agree, he lied and raised taxes on people making less than 250k, unless you believe nobody making less than 250k smokes. Or uses tanning beds.

On Sept. 12, 2008, while on the campaign trail in Dover, N.H., Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see ANY FORM of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." emphasis added

This doesn't even touch on the fact that there will be a tax on people who don't have health insurance, and unless you believe nobody under 250,000 income will lack health insurance.

Again, this is not necessarily correct and not as simple as you would like to make it. A study of basic economics specifically a study of Keynesian Economics might help.

Already got the PhD and my field of study is economics and taxes, so I hardly believe the basic study course will help. Keynesian economics is fine as a study of macro-economics, but ignores the behavioral issues of what happens when you create a welfare state, prop up too big to fail banks, and generally provide incentives to not produce, but rather become an economic drag.

Obama could have vetoed any spending measure, he elected not to. He shares blame with congress for adding a trillion a year or more in debt

[chrisdfw]

Guns do kill people. Look at the stats of countries with stricter gun laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
The United States is still the wild wild west.

Look at the states with the strictest gun laws... and you'll come to the opposite conclusion. The states and cities with the strictest gun laws usually have the highest crime.

You'll also notice that in many cases overall violent crime is higher in countries with strict gun control. So people can be killed with things other than guns. All the firearms related death rate proves is that firearms are required to have firearm related deaths. Many of these deaths are suicides as well.

Violent crime overall is 4 times lower in the US compared to the UK, and the UK has very strict gun control. So using the firearms related death rate is misleading.

[msm859]

[/COLOR]


We then disagree. Only to the point of rhetoric. A truly mental case, known by their Doctor to be so, or a Felon, or a person who would normally not be allowed to purchase a weapon or ammunition as a minor, is not legal to purchase. If a law abiding citizen passes the weapons course in our State, FL they have a right to carry a firearm concealed or not concealed (if the local ordinances allow this for non conceal). A registered owner is not allowed to take that piece into a bar, a business posting a sign, or other like establishments. However, very few registered weapons owners hold up people. They are checked with an extensive background history, med records, NCIC.

On the other hand it is illegal for a felon to carry. But no law is going to stop a felon anyway. Guns do NOT kill people. People (bad ones) kill people. I've never seen a car cause an accident without a person controlling or not controlling it well. I have a gun safe and one of those nasty assault pieces. Never have I seen it leave that safe unless it was in my hand. I know how to use it and I know how to be safe. Every piece I have is loaded and chambered. There is no doubt in my house that it "could" be empty. 'Hub

Guns do kill people. Look at the stats of countries with stricter gun laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
The United States is still the wild wild west.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Obama has done NOTHING to restrict your "second amendment rights". If you though believe that any crazy person should be able to buy an uzi or 30 round clip then I guess we will just have to "disagree" on that issue.

We then disagree. Only to the point of rhetoric. A truly mental case, known by their Doctor to be so, or a Felon, or a person who would normally not be allowed to purchase a weapon or ammunition as a minor, is not legal to purchase. If a law abiding citizen passes the weapons course in our State, FL they have a right to carry a firearm concealed or not concealed (if the local ordinances allow this for non conceal). A registered owner is not allowed to take that piece into a bar, a business posting a sign, or other like establishments. However, very few registered weapons owners hold up people. They are checked with an extensive background history, med records, NCIC.

On the other hand it is illegal for a felon to carry. But no law is going to stop a felon anyway. Guns do NOT kill people. People (bad ones) kill people. I've never seen a car cause an accident without a person controlling or not controlling it well. I have a gun safe and one of those nasty assault pieces. Never have I seen it leave that safe unless it was in my hand. I know how to use it and I know how to be safe. Every piece I have is loaded and chambered. There is no doubt in my house that it "could" be empty. 'Hub

[msm859]

In the interest of fair disclosure, I wish there was a better choice than Romney... it really is voting AGAINST Obama... and that is sad. In a country of 300 million the best
two choices are Obama and Romney... I sure wish a libertarian could get traction.

Here is what he did:

Failed to veto several ridiculous spending bills and tax increases despite his promise to not raise taxes on those under 250,000, not vetoing tax increases
makes him a liar. He said he would not increase taxes on those making less than 250k and he did. WRONG He has in fact lowered taxes

He is a liar! Having a liar as president creates uncertainty, which is bad for the economy

He has run up the debt to unsustainable levels (congress passes the bills of course, but he could have vetoed, so the buck stops with him)
WRONG again, although this is a complicated issue that needs a basic understanding of economics and the ability to use critical analysis to find causation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Romney, but right now I am simply voting against the guy who failed to stop the predicament we are in, if Romney
can't fix it, I'll vote against him in 4 years if given a reasonable alternative.
Bad idea. If Obama is actually heading us in the right direction but we are "further away" then anyone first thought, if you then elect someone who is going to take us in the wrong direction we will only be that much worse off
You can't spend or borrow your way out of a debt crisis... we should all know that here, Obama and Congress (all of them) apparently do not. So we
stack on trillions of debt a year.Again, this is not necessarily correct and not as simple as you would like to make it. A study of basic economics specifically a study of Keynesian Economics might help

If Obama was honest he would have vetoed the SCHIP expansion, because it raised taxes on those making less than 250 a year, he would have vetoed the
healthcare bill for the same reason. He made a promise, lied to me and my fellow americans, and piled debt on the backs of our children.
??? Obama has LOWERED taxes. SCHIP helps our children get health care it was paid for buy a tax on cigarettes.
I won't even go into his desire to restrict my second amendment rights, but that alone would be reason enough to vote against him for me, though I doubt
Romney is much better.

Obama has done NOTHING to restrict your "second amendment rights". If you though believe that any crazy person should be able to buy an uzi or 30 round clip then I guess we will just have to "disagree" on that issue.

[msm859]

It started with Nixon taking us off the gold standard and every president (especially Clinton by over turning Glass steagall) since Nixon played a part. Bush was the sucker, the deer in the headlights who just so happened to have been in office when the music stopped. Obama may be the next sucker when the dollar continues it's collapse. You can argue all you want. It's collapsing! Just look at your food prices and gas prices and think of banca.

I agree with you about Clinton signing the bill to end Glass Steagall, but in his defense it was a Republican bill and they in fact had a veto proof vote on it. I totally disagree with you about Bush. He in fact is the primary cause of the current economic state. The Bush tax cuts, 2 unnecessary and unpaid for wars and the big pharma drug give away. He also set the get away with anything environment starting when Enron raped and pillaged CA that he could have easily stopped with FERC - the banks then saw they could get away with anything - as they have. You are correct about concern with the dollar. The 800 pound gorilla is the looming deficit. We will at some point reach critical mass were perhaps the only answer will by hyper inflation.

[msm859]

Who is this "they" that you speak of?

The power companies -- it is already happening

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703579804575441683910246338.html

[LadyInTheRed]

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

And in response, 38 climate and earth scientists signed a letter to the editor saying in part:

...You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

...The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered..

You can read the entire letter at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...727472662.html

Those 16 scientist are in the very small minority. Many are reported to have ties to the oil and gas industry: http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-new...stry-influence