United States of Entropy

[INDY500]

There's more to it than that. INDY can correct me, but I think that the average Republican believes that government investment in solar makes the economy worse while not being worth that tradeoff; that gun control's effects in limiting mass shootings are limited enough to not worth the sacrificing of individual liberty, or that gun control makes crime worse; that stimulus actually hurts job-creation (an opinion shared by most economists, actually); and that state-sponsored health care is bad for health care/the economy enough to not be worth any benefits that it may bring. Those tradeoffs are where policy differs, and it's important to understand them in developing policy positions. I'm not sure that ascribing a cause of cowardice for positions that are somewhat reasonably thought through (even though I certainly don't agree with all of them) is particularly productive.

I wouldn't correct a thing except to add that conservatives are all for solar and wind when and if they make economic sense. We're more interested in controlling criminals and nutjobs than guns. We understand that Washington doesn't create wealth it only redistributes it. And we would point out what will soon be painfully obvious to everyone but the drones; Obamacare isn't about providing healthcare it's about controlling healthcare.

 

[INDY500]

just wait to see how they act when the next president has a vagina. #evenworse

Yes, please lecture conservatives on unhinged reactions to a woman occupying the White House.

 

[nathan1977]

What did the '06 Democrats do that would warrant a comparison with defunding the government and this debt ceiling nonsense?

You mean besides unanimously voting against raising the debt ceiling, as advocated by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2006?

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. ... ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

Incidentally, the then-Senator opposed raising the debt ceiling to $9T. Now it's at $14.3T.

 

[AEON]

I wouldn't correct a thing except to add that conservatives are all for solar and wind when and if they make economic sense.

Well, with solar power dropping an average of 7% per year and fossil fuels rising an average of 4.5% a year - it won't be long before we finally have you on board. Better late than never...

 

[Irvine511]

You mean besides unanimously voting against raising the debt ceiling, as advocated by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2006? Incidentally, the then-Senator opposed raising the debt ceiling to $9T. Now it's at $14.3T.

Here's some honesty:

I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator, traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#4VOIRL1WcMTUKtPs.99

This also comes nowhere close to shutting down the government over Obamacare.

So, again, false equivalence.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, please lecture conservatives on unhinged reactions to a woman occupying the White House.

Setting aside the fuckability factor, which, alongside being anti-choice, seems to have been this delusional Alaskan grifter's only qualifications for office, we have a long, long, long list of unhinged conservative reactions to Hillary Clinton.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, with solar power dropping an average of 7% per year and fossil fuels rising an average of 4.5% a year - it won't be long before we finally have you on board. Better late than never...

But will the GOP be on board? Exxon Mobile controls a lot of politicians.

I should be more clear -- my revulsion is more about the GOP's than conservatives themselves.

 

[nathan1977]

again, false equivalence.

It's not. The vote in 2006 was along party lines for the Democrats, who voted unanimously against raising the debt limit. You asked what the Dems in 2006 that was equivalent to voting against raising the debt ceiling. The answer is clear: the exact same damn thing.

So accusing the GOP of playing the exact same play book the Dems did, but calling the GOP's tactics racist, feels like an obfuscation and a smoke screen.

Let's hope our politicians can get beyond the political votes and start doing what's best for the country.

 

[AEON]

I should be more clear -- my revulsion is more about the GOP's than conservatives themselves.

I can appreciate that...especially as a former Republican. I'm not to fond of the GOP these days either.

IS there a political party that supports personal conservatism, social libertarianism, and fiscal liberalism?

 

[anitram]

It's not. The vote in 2006 was along party lines for the Democrats, who voted unanimously against raising the debt limit. You asked what the Dems in 2006 that was equivalent to voting against raising the debt ceiling. The answer is clear: the exact same damn thing..

Really?

The meaningless and symbolic vote that the Democrats took, on political grounds as is par for the course for them and everyone else in Washington, which had no chance of passing and caused no worry in the markets is the same as what's happened during Obama's term?

When the AAA rating was lost? And Republican shenanigans reached unheard of levels?

You're being disingenuous.

 

[martha]

Setting aside the fuckability factor, which, alongside being anti-choice, seems to have been this delusional Alaskan grifter's only qualifications for office, we have a long, long, long list of unhinged conservative reactions to Hillary Clinton.

Exactly. Stupid and (really really) pretty versus (really really) smart and not-so-pretty? We know what conservatives like.

 

[Irvine511]

kind of slammed for time today, and anitram said what i would have, but i'll add this opinion piece:

A Republican Ransom Note
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: September 26, 2013 105 Comments

On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew sent the House a very serious warning that, for the first time, the United States would be unable to pay its bills beginning on Oct. 17 if the debt ceiling is not lifted. House leaders responded on Thursday with one of the least serious negotiating proposals in modern Congressional history: a jaw-dropping list of ransom demands containing more than a dozen discredited Republican policy fantasies.

We’ll refrain from deliberately sabotaging the global economy, Speaker John Boehner and the other leaders said, if President Obama allows more oil drilling on federal lands. And drops regulations on greenhouse gases. And builds the Keystone XL oil pipeline. And stops paying for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And makes it harder to sue for medical malpractice. And, of course, halts health care reform for a year.

The list would be laughable if the threat were not so serious. A failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a default on government debt, shattering the world’s faith in Treasury bonds as an investment vehicle and almost certainly bringing on another economic downturn. Unlike a government shutdown, a default could leave the Treasury without enough money to pay Social Security benefits or the paychecks of troops.

The full effects remain unknown because no Congress has ever allowed the government to go over the brink before. The Government Accountability Office estimated that simply by threatening to default in 2011, Republicans cost taxpayers $1.3 billion in higher interest payments because of that uncertainty. The 10-year cost of those higher-interest bonds is $18.9 billion.

Any sober-minded lawmaker should realize that the danger of trifling with the debt limit is far too high. But Mr. Boehner has been encouraging his members to toss their pet projects — hey, let’s insist on Congressional approval for every major federal regulation! — onto the towering list of demands.

By day’s end, many Republican members remained skeptical of the leadership plan. But the House leaders clearly hope the president will take the bait and negotiate on a few items on the list, forcing him to break his promise never to bargain over the debt ceiling. Many items on the list are intended to put vulnerable red-state Democratic senators on the spot should the plan wind up in their chamber. One of them, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, said Thursday he could support a year’s delay on health reform. If the unified Democratic opposition to the debt-ceiling threat is shattered in the Senate, the pressure on Mr. Obama to come to the table would be intense.

But the absurdity of the list shows just how important it is that Mr. Obama ignore every demand and force the House extremists to decide whether they really want to be responsible for an economic catastrophe. He made a mistake by negotiating in 2011, hoping to reach a grand bargain; that produced the corrosive sequester cuts.

To prevent the House from making every debt-ceiling increase an opportunity to issue extortionist demands for rejected policies they can achieve in no other way, the president has to put an end to the routine creation of emergencies once and for all by simply saying no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/o...er&adxnnlx=1380283811-7+Iy00laTT5DxcOyIeQ5YQ&

while a comment like "terrorist" isn't helpful, it doesn't seem all that far off the mark.

 

[AEON]

while a comment like "terrorist" isn't helpful, it doesn't seem all that far off the mark.

We need to get some software architects to write a program to run our government - obviously people are incapable of it.

 

[Kieran McConville]

So it's basically a less-nice Ron Swanson, drunk, and with a gun.

 

[digitize]

Just to play devil's advocate here: how is President Obama not holding the economy hostage by insisting that he will sign no budget without funding for the potentially economically deleterious Affordable Care Act?

 

[Irvine511]

Just to play devil's advocate here: how is President Obama not holding the economy hostage by insisting that he will sign no budget without funding for the potentially economically deleterious Affordable Care Act?

because the ACA is the law of the land, ratified by the SCOTUS, and part of the will of the american people as demonstrated in the 2008 and 2012 elections as well as a majority in the Senate and a majority of popular votes for D representatives in the House.

if the R's would like to change or repeal the ACA, they can start by winning elections.

 

[INDY500]

Well, with solar power dropping an average of 7% per year and fossil fuels rising an average of 4.5% a year - it won't be long before we finally have you on board. Better late than never...

That is being accomplished in great part with federal subsidies propping up green energy while simultaneously wagging a war on coal through EPA regulations and virtually shutting down gas and oil leases on federal lands raising the price of fossil fuels.

And which income group is harmed most by increased utility bills and prices at the pump?

That would be the middle class. The same middle class that's seen their net worth shrink the past 5 years.

Our economy struggles and people suffer because this administration is beholden to environmental extremists rather than free enterprise.

And I need not remind you of the current difficulties in transporting, storing and over coming the intermittent properties of solar and wind power. By all means, keep informed of technological advances but please don't forget the simple economics of energy supply and demand.

 

[Jive Turkey]

There's a war on coal and THEY'RE TAKIN' OUR JOBS!!

Transporting and storing energy. That's the reason this newfangled electricity hasn't gotten off the ground yet

 

[AEON]

don't forget the simple economics of energy supply and demand.

Maybe there are at least two things about energy supply and demand that aren't so simple.

1) Prices and supply are manipulated by banks
2) If we had continued to burn fossil fuels without any concern for the environment (let's say with a late nineteenth/early twentieth century concern) - then everything on the globe would be covered in a mile deep layer of black soot.

No market, especially energy, is as simple as "supply and demand." There are many, many factors to consider. Sustainability, time to market, downstream costs, impact to national security, impact to other nations, immediate/long-term impact to the health of the population...

 

[U2DMfan]

Dey took our jerb!

 

[Jive Turkey]

der trk er jrrb

 

[Irvine511]

Should we talk about the massive subsidies oil gets that keep our prices significantly lower than anywhere else in the developed world?

Talk about propping up and industry.

 

[AEON]

Our economy struggles and people suffer because this administration is beholden to environmental extremists rather than free enterprise.

C'mon INDY - this is not an either/or scenario. And if you would do some further research, solar will reach non-subsidized grid parity within 5-10 years. After that, it will get cheaper...and cheaper...and cheaper...

While the opposite is true of fossil fuels.

I'm not an environmental extremists, but as a Christian I certainly believe in good stewardship of our universe (and not purposely causing cancer and other diseases to other people). I'm also excited that we are right around the corner from cheap, clean, ubiquitous energy. What's wrong with that? No matter how you dice it - solar wins. Which means we win.

 

[U2DMfan]

der trk er jrrb

I am laughing my ass off right now just thinking about them saying it.

I especially like the one in the wrestling episode.

I think one of them says "They took his dog!"

 

[Jive Turkey]

How awesome is this?

 

[LemonMelon]

Woah, there's South Park cosplay?

 

[anitram]

Should we talk about the massive subsidies oil gets that keep our prices significantly lower than anywhere else in the developed world?

Talk about propping up and industry.

It's not so much subsidies as a lack of a meaningful gas tax (current federal rate is like 18 cents/gallon). It is good and SIMPLE economics (INDY, hope you're paying attention) to apply a gas tax because it's economics 101 that price should reflect cost. Except with gasoline, extraction cost does not provide an accurate picture due to the high social costs that come along with the use of gasoline (air pollution, Middle East politics, etc). Hence, what makes good economic sense is to apply a gasoline tax in order to offset social costs introduced by the use of gasoline. Such a tax would also have an indirect benefit of stimulating R&D of clean and alternative energies.

It is politically unfeasible in the US to raise the taxes. The solution should be to raise them incrementally. But you just need to sniff a post by INDY to tell you why such a rational move, based on plain ol' economic good sense, can't even be debated lest you be accused of being a communist.

 

[nathan1977]

The meaningless and symbolic vote that the Democrats took

The vote then certainly wasn't meaningless and it certainly wasn't merely symbolic. (The arguments against raising the debt ceiling are the same now as they were then; only some of the names, faces, and party affiliations have changed.) Read Obama's full text from that speech; his words -- particularly about how, when we continue to borrow from foreign powers, we become perhaps inextricably tied to their interests and policies -- were understandably cautionary, and, as it turns out, prescient. The President may try to revise the context of his statements now (conveniently enough), but they made a lot of sense then, as well as now. The writing was already on the wall in 2006 in terms of the financial crisis that was coming; it was just that no one knew how bad things were going to get.

You're being disingenuous.

I feel badly that you feel that way, but I don't think I am. I believe in financial responsibility, no matter who's in the White House or what color our President is. Accusing the GOP of terrorism, or charging them with racism because they agree with the President's former statements -- made before he had an apparent change of heart (and referred to his former comments as those of a political opportunist) -- seems silly. Calling the GOP's stance on fiscal responsibility, when the Democrats had literally been calling for the same stance until they got into power, seems actually disingenuous. I have no problem calling all our politicians disingenuous by the way -- they're all interested in covering their asses. This is not, however, where true leadership will be found.

 

[digitize]

Except with gasoline, extraction cost does not provide an accurate picture due to the high social costs that come along with the use of gasoline (air pollution, Middle East politics, etc).

This basic argument, more or less, applies for a carbon tax or cap and trade in general, at least in my mind.

 

[Irvine511]

The vote then certainly wasn't meaningless and it certainly wasn't merely symbolic. (The arguments against raising the debt ceiling are the same now as they were then; only some of the names, faces, and party affiliations have changed.) Read Obama's full text from that speech; his words -- particularly about how, when we continue to borrow from foreign powers, we become perhaps inextricably tied to their interests and policies -- were understandably cautionary, and, as it turns out, prescient. The President may try to revise the context of his statements now (conveniently enough), but they made a lot of sense then, as well as now. The writing was already on the wall in 2006 in terms of the financial crisis that was coming; it was just that no one knew how bad things were going to get. I feel badly that you feel that way, but I don't think I am. I believe in financial responsibility, no matter who's in the White House or what color our President is. Accusing the GOP of terrorism, or charging them with racism because they agree with the President's former statements -- made before he had an apparent change of heart (and referred to his former comments as those of a political opportunist) -- seems silly. Calling the GOP's stance on fiscal responsibility, when the Democrats had literally been calling for the same stance until they got into power, seems actually disingenuous. I have no problem calling all our politicians disingenuous by the way -- they're all interested in covering their asses. This is not, however, where true leadership will be found.

Nathan, it's an entirely different situation.