(08-30-2018, 09:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2018, 08:37 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]What credit is there to give to Obama? When he was running for reelection he was still blaming the economy on Bush. The guy was great at slowing down the rebound, I will give him credit for that. I don't want to overstate the impact of the president, but there is no doubt that Trump has been much better for the economy than Obama.
When he ran for re election he pointed out that 2008 was better economically than 2012. Blaming Bush, no, not directly.
I'm don't know if Trump is better for the economy or not, and I think being sure that one was better is "overstating the impact of the President."
Lol. Have u paid attention to the capital investment since 10:00 November 9th 2016?
(08-30-2018, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2018, 10:31 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]A.) Go deeper. The basic principal is that the state fundamentally controls everything as a function of state social policy. The profit motive is driven not by personal innovation but by centrally planned state aims.
And we aren't trying to limit options we are trying to limit coercion.
B.) Liar liar, both are a means of taxation artificially making certain kinds of energy more expensive. It's childish. America lead the world in carbon reductions while the Paris countries actually increased carbon emissions. The state can't make sure that soldiers have their toiletries but they can micro-manage the atmosphere? Lol.
C.) What did he believe. What did he advocate. How did that play out.
DETENTION!!!!!
LOL.
A) I don't think any of this is relevant to the point that either of us are trying to make.
B) a cap-and-trade scheme doesn't necessarily involve anybody giving more money to the government. The government does a one-time auction of pollution licenses, but the amount of money the government raises this way is not significant to the plan and the initial price is supposed to be low. These licenses can then be traded on the private Market as the individual needs of the companies that bought the licenses change. this gives you greater certainty about the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere in a given year, but the companies that have to buy and trade these licenses will not have very much certainty about the price from year to year. so as they do anything that is energy-intensive, they will face the uncertainty about the cost of the fuel itself plus the uncertainty of the cost of the license. and the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time. The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis and does not add to uncertainty.
C) the only thing that I know about Obama in his State Senate years were is speech against the Iraq War. so you tell me what he believed and advocated for and how that played out.
A.) It's perfectly relevant. The current iteration of socialism, much like that of fascism, isn't necessarily predicated on the full nationalization of industry. Ocasio cortez isn't advocating that she actually get out and run day to day operations. It's based on the theory that all businesses exist to serve the STATE not the individual wishes of the consumer. As such, the state has full control on the flow of capital, pricing, eligibility, etc. Etc. And profit is derived from compliance with state goals not individual goals. You could say it's a derivative of socialism, but it's still state control of the means of production.
B.) Lol. Again all the bloviating about government schemes to reduce emissions (not even talking about the premise of climate change) and once again the market creates the best solution with competative alternative energy.
Cap and trade and pollution licenses or a direct tax on carbon are two sides of the same flawed coin: the idea that the state, which can't run a basic annuity program or buy mortgages, or have solvent healthcare, is going to accurately manage THE ATMOSPHERE. putting aside the blatant absurdity and lack of credibility, Most assessments of behaviors that actually lower emissions are wrong. The left is pushing more expensive feel good alrternatives. Price is a reflection of the actual goods and services needed to bring a product to market. Making The overall economy less efficient will either a.) Increase emissions overall (like cars that require batteries hand crafted by the ghost of Christmas past and flown around the world twice) or b.) You accomplish your goal by having people freeze to death.
Whether it's a cap and trade scheme or a direct carbon tax the problem is with whoever actually comes up with the assessment of which economic behaviors are actually going to have more overall impact on emissions. No one on the left is pushing increased natural gas tracking opposed to some electric car that sounds clean but has to be charged on a fossil fuel grid with batteries that take a lot of resources to make and fail over time.
C.) The community organizer ORGANIZED grass roots activism to affect, wait for it, housing policy. Redlining, disparate impact etc. You name it he, and his forerunner Valerie Jarrett were fully in favor of and advocated for government intervention in AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Because the market is greedy u see, and it can't meet the needs of ordinary people. So we can't leave it up to bankers, no. We have to come up with elaborate government schemes to hold up bank mergers if they don't comply with certain quotas. We have to actually go in and change the definition of what is a conforming loan and package these new AFFORDABLE loans into bundles to encourage the 'market' to find mechanisms to fund these new instruments of equality.
And then when it all blows up we just blame capitalism? Keep it classy San Diego.
(08-30-2018, 08:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2018, 06:50 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Can you explain how the current growth seen today is a direct result of one or more of President Obama's policies? Please don't use the "he brought us out of a recession" argument. The bank bailouts and the bailouts of the auto industry were already pretty much put into place before he even took the Oath of Office.
His "cash for clunkers" policy was a total failure and a waste of money.
Obamacare (aka The Affordable Care Act) was also a failure, especially when it comes to the economy.
So please explain how the current growth of the economy is a "direct result" of President Obama's policy(s).
A pollution license. Just think about that concept for a minute.
Meanwhile, you stated under B) that it "doesn't involve anybody giving more money to the government". Then towards the end of your statement you state that the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time, yet your very next sentence states "The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis"... It's all in the underlined part of your quote.
So here are direct questions for you.
1) Does another tax involve someone giving more money to the government?
2) Will the government collect any revenue on an ongoing basis or would it be a one time tax?
3) Are you saying that releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere should be taxed? Is that what a "pollution license" is supposed to be for?
You are tripling down on your error. The terms "cap and trade" and "carbon tax" are not interchangeable.
Cap and Trade: government gets a small amount of revenue one time, and maybe intermittently after that. Amount of CO2 released within that country's borders does not exceed the cap. Cost impacts are not predictable, the value of the licenses/permits may vary widely, but the money is all changing hands between banks, insurers, and polluters, not the government.
Carbon tax: government gets a continuous stream of revenue. Fuels cost a bit more, like when they raise the gas tax. There is no cap and people can pollute more, they'll just pay more tax.
Government license and one time fee are contradictory terms. Just saying. And he same government that looses hundreds of billions of dollars a year because of waste fraud abuse and the inefficiency of the income tax is going to be able to accurately enforce a tax on atmospheric distribution....
How's the cap on annual visas to enter the country worked over the last say... 50 years?
Just want to point out the hypocrisy and I really would love one of you Trumpsters to explain it to me...
You are sucking Trump's sick about the GDP, but thr man himself cites the "serious economic situation" as the reason federal civilian workers will not get their raise this year.
So what gives? In this America, if you are already rich, the swamp will do everything it can to make you richer. If you work your tail off and could use relief (you know.. Backbone of the economy and all that), there is little to nothing that can be done to help you. If this isn't class warfare, it sure as Hell looks like it.
(08-31-2018, 06:55 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]Just want to point out the hypocrisy and I really would love one of you Trumpsters to explain it to me...
You are sucking Trump's sick about the GDP, but thr man himself cites the "serious economic situation" as the reason federal civilian workers will not get their raise this year.
So what gives? In this America, if you are already rich, the swamp will do everything it can to make you richer. If you work your tail off and could use relief (you know.. Backbone of the economy and all that), there is little to nothing that can be done to help you. If this isn't class warfare, it sure as Hell looks like it.
You're such a homophobe, is that really the best slur your little bigoted mind can come up with to insult other people?
(08-31-2018, 06:55 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]Just want to point out the hypocrisy and I really would love one of you Trumpsters to explain it to me...
You are sucking Trump's sick about the GDP, but thr man himself cites the "serious economic situation" as the reason federal civilian workers will not get their raise this year.
So what gives? In this America, if you are already rich, the swamp will do everything it can to make you richer. If you work your tail off and could use relief (you know.. Backbone of the economy and all that), there is little to nothing that can be done to help you. If this isn't class warfare, it sure as Hell looks like it.
I'm actually disappointed by this post. Ur smarter than this. Wrong a lot of the time, but much better thought out and reasoned.
(08-31-2018, 06:55 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]Just want to point out the hypocrisy and I really would love one of you Trumpsters to explain it to me...
You are sucking Trump's sick about the GDP, but thr man himself cites the "serious economic situation" as the reason federal civilian workers will not get their raise this year.
So what gives? In this America, if you are already rich, the swamp will do everything it can to make you richer. If you work your tail off and could use relief (you know.. Backbone of the economy and all that), there is little to nothing that can be done to help you. If this isn't class warfare, it sure as Hell looks like it.
Not all federal workers deserve a raise. I worked for a local municipality for a decade out of college and my annual raises were dictated by how that increase would look in the eyes of the public and literally zero to do with my performance. Know what I did? I took control of my career and left for the private industry.
Point being, if someone is waiting on the government or state to better their life, they will be disappointed.
It is so funny people trying to credit Obama 2 years after he has left office.
The (majority of) economic growth is directly linked to the LIFTING of REGULATIONS by Trump, put in place BY Obama. And further boosted by the expectations of improved environment based on the TAX CUTS put in place by the Trump admin.
What exactly did Obama have to do with the current growth?
(08-31-2018, 02:08 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2018, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A) I don't think any of this is relevant to the point that either of us are trying to make.
B) a cap-and-trade scheme doesn't necessarily involve anybody giving more money to the government. The government does a one-time auction of pollution licenses, but the amount of money the government raises this way is not significant to the plan and the initial price is supposed to be low. These licenses can then be traded on the private Market as the individual needs of the companies that bought the licenses change. this gives you greater certainty about the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere in a given year, but the companies that have to buy and trade these licenses will not have very much certainty about the price from year to year. so as they do anything that is energy-intensive, they will face the uncertainty about the cost of the fuel itself plus the uncertainty of the cost of the license. and the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time. The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis and does not add to uncertainty.
C) the only thing that I know about Obama in his State Senate years were is speech against the Iraq War. so you tell me what he believed and advocated for and how that played out.
A.) It's perfectly relevant. The current iteration of socialism, much like that of fascism, isn't necessarily predicated on the full nationalization of industry. Ocasio cortez isn't advocating that she actually get out and run day to day operations. It's based on the theory that all businesses exist to serve the STATE not the individual wishes of the consumer. As such, the state has full control on the flow of capital, pricing, eligibility, etc. Etc. And profit is derived from compliance with state goals not individual goals. You could say it's a derivative of socialism, but it's still state control of the means of production.
B.) Lol. Again all the bloviating about government schemes to reduce emissions (not even talking about the premise of climate change) and once again the market creates the best solution with competative alternative energy.
Cap and trade and pollution licenses or a direct tax on carbon are two sides of the same flawed coin: the idea that the state, which can't run a basic annuity program or buy mortgages, or have solvent healthcare, is going to accurately manage THE ATMOSPHERE. putting aside the blatant absurdity and lack of credibility, Most assessments of behaviors that actually lower emissions are wrong. The left is pushing more expensive feel good alrternatives. Price is a reflection of the actual goods and services needed to bring a product to market. Making The overall economy less efficient will either a.) Increase emissions overall (like cars that require batteries hand crafted by the ghost of Christmas past and flown around the world twice) or b.) You accomplish your goal by having people freeze to death.
Whether it's a cap and trade scheme or a direct carbon tax the problem is with whoever actually comes up with the assessment of which economic behaviors are actually going to have more overall impact on emissions. No one on the left is pushing increased natural gas tracking opposed to some electric car that sounds clean but has to be charged on a fossil fuel grid with batteries that take a lot of resources to make and fail over time.
C.) The community organizer ORGANIZED grass roots activism to affect, wait for it, housing policy. Redlining, disparate impact etc. You name it he, and his forerunner Valerie Jarrett were fully in favor of and advocated for government intervention in AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Because the market is greedy u see, and it can't meet the needs of ordinary people. So we can't leave it up to bankers, no. We have to come up with elaborate government schemes to hold up bank mergers if they don't comply with certain quotas. We have to actually go in and change the definition of what is a conforming loan and package these new AFFORDABLE loans into bundles to encourage the 'market' to find mechanisms to fund these new instruments of equality.
And then when it all blows up we just blame capitalism? Keep it classy San Diego.
A) I think I actually agree with you. I think some of the same ideas are in this article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ul/504710/ Invoking Nazis threw me for a loop, but I get what you're saying.
B) I agree that with both cap-and-trade and with a carbon tax, you are trusting the government to calculate the amount of CO2 or CO2 equivalent of each industrial process. This is actually really easy to do at the power plant and fuel refinery level, and that's all that cap-and-trade typically looks at. With a carbon tax, you would need to calculate the carbon emissions associated with finished goods imported into this country, and that might introduce some opportunity for shenanigans. I think you're building up a straw man; no one is proposing that government can "accurately manage the atmosphere". We can mitigate damage to it, however. Each of these policies, on its own, would mitigate damage to the atmosphere, and both are agnostic to changes in technology. Your talk about new technology and new types of batteries applies more to when the government tries to target tax credits to batteries and solar panels and stuff like that. Cards on the table, the only one of these policies I think is a good idea going forward is the carbon tax. I don't like cap and trade. I don't like targeted subsidies. I took advantage of the solar panel subsidy our government has now, but, it wouldn't be needed anymore if we had a carbon tax. A carbon tax would not become obsolete until it achieves its goal and people stop emitting large amounts of carbon. A solar panel credit could become obsolete as soon as a better technology comes around.
C) Yes, Chicago-area housing policy was one thing Obama worked on. A community organizer typically just presents problems to the people in charge, though. The community organizer doesn't write new policy. Do you know what redlining was? Do you think redlining was a good thing, or something that Obama had anything at all to do with?
You people are hysterical.. Check my post history and tell me I am a homophobe. If you knew anything about me personally, you would realize how absurd a statement that is.
Let me simplify... If the GDP is so amazing, how can Trump cite the current economy as his justification for retracting the annual raise for civilian federal workers?
(08-31-2018, 04:18 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]You people are hysterical.. Check my post history and tell me I am a homophobe. If you knew anything about me personally, you would realize how absurd a statement that is.
Let me simplify... If the GDP is so amazing, how can Trump cite the current economy as his justification for retracting the annual raise for civilian federal workers?
You should stop monkeying around and just apologize for offending us. Mikiesez so.
(08-31-2018, 04:18 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]You people are hysterical.. Check my post history and tell me I am a homophobe. If you knew anything about me personally, you would realize how absurd a statement that is.
Let me simplify... If the GDP is so amazing, how can Trump cite the current economy as his justification for retracting the annual raise for civilian federal workers?
You aren't entitled to a raise because the economy is doing well. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Taking your last post.. "..because the economy is doing well."
Trump's excuse.. Retracting the PLANNED raise due to the economic situation.
Why is it so hard to understand?
$77M on golf.. millions on unneccessary flight expenses.. A $137K door.. A $31K china set for Ben Carson.. Too bad about that unneccesary military parade. I thought we were draining the swamp?
(08-30-2018, 05:27 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]Spending increases are driving this, but [BLEEP] the deficit, right? We're borrowing more than we have since 2008, but [BLEEP] all that. Am I right? Revenue up, but spending is up more. But screw numbers. Did you see that birdie Trump had on 17? Sure the civilian federal workers get their raises axed, but have you seen the tax cuts the elite rich got? Why complain?
Don't even try and champion deficit spending. When it was brought up with the last administration we were labeled racist.
(08-31-2018, 06:55 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]Taking your last post.. "..because the economy is doing well."
Trump's excuse.. Retracting the PLANNED raise due to the economic situation.
Why is it so hard to understand?
$77M on golf.. millions on unneccessary flight expenses.. A $137K door.. A $31K china set for Ben Carson.. Too bad about that unneccesary military parade. I thought we were draining the swamp?
Unnecessary flight expenses? What in the living hell are you talking about?
Freedom isn't free.
(08-31-2018, 06:09 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2018, 04:18 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]You people are hysterical.. Check my post history and tell me I am a homophobe. If you knew anything about me personally, you would realize how absurd a statement that is.
Let me simplify... If the GDP is so amazing, how can Trump cite the current economy as his justification for retracting the annual raise for civilian federal workers?
You should stop monkeying around and just apologize for offending us. Mikiesez so.
Wait, are you or Kotite running for political office?
(08-31-2018, 07:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2018, 05:27 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]Spending increases are driving this, but [BLEEP] the deficit, right? We're borrowing more than we have since 2008, but [BLEEP] all that. Am I right? Revenue up, but spending is up more. But screw numbers. Did you see that birdie Trump had on 17? Sure the civilian federal workers get their raises axed, but have you seen the tax cuts the elite rich got? Why complain?
Don't even try and champion deficit spending. When it was brought up with the last administration we were labeled racist.
You're supposed to have deficit spending in a recession.
You're not supposed to have deficit spending when you're at full employment and economic growth is high.
(08-31-2018, 06:39 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2018, 04:18 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]You people are hysterical.. Check my post history and tell me I am a homophobe. If you knew anything about me personally, you would realize how absurd a statement that is.
Let me simplify... If the GDP is so amazing, how can Trump cite the current economy as his justification for retracting the annual raise for civilian federal workers?
You aren't entitled to a raise because the economy is doing well. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
That's a logical explanation but, it's not the explanation our President used. That old fat peacock insulted his own economy to justify this move.
(08-31-2018, 08:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2018, 06:09 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You should stop monkeying around and just apologize for offending us. Mikiesez so.
Wait, are you or Kotite running for political office?
(08-31-2018, 07:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Don't even try and champion deficit spending. When it was brought up with the last administration we were labeled racist.
You're supposed to have deficit spending in a recession.
You're not supposed to have deficit spending when you're at full employment and economic growth is high.
First of all you didn't acknowledge the charge.
Second of all by all means, spend more money when you have less of it to spend.
Finally, we should not condone deficit spending regardless of the situation, the party involved or the heritage of the one spending it. We tighten our belts when times get tough period.
![[Image: 24fovx.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/24fovx.jpg)