Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[pancakes3]

President Clinton on Morning Joe today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/ ... /#45205500

He's still smart.

Government/Private partnership.

I tried pitching that idea 20 pages ago when we were talking about solar and infrastructure.

It made to much common sense to be excepted to some here. We need lower taxes, less regulation and pure private industry capitalism. That seems to be their only solution. Never mind that other countries will continue to outpace us if we do it that way because they are doing government and private industry partnerships.

- you said the government should make work investing in specific industries. clinton is pushing for an infrastructure bank who holds money that will be specifically be invested in infrastructure and funded voluntarily and still operated under free-market principles (North Dakota oil drilling, energy grid upgrades, broadband/cell tower upgrades, light rail, etc) and not specifically "going green" ideals.

- it's accepted, not excepted.

- lower taxes, less regulation, pure private industry capitalism is THE rallying cry of tea partiers - the party that you've denounced repeatedly.

- what I think clinton disingenuously glossed over when discussing other nations like Germany is that America is freakin huge compared to those countries, does not have a parliamentary system, and does not have as ingrained a welfare-state culture.

re: dobro about election reform:

Obama was definitely the best choice in '08 and looks like to be the best choice in '12 again. I just wish that there's a higher caliber of candidate willing to throw their hat in the ring. I'd much rather have a governor with a proven track record of running the executive - and being held accountable for their actions than a never-ending parade of senators with questionable/brief/and-or muddled voting histories.

Chris Christie is an intriguing candidate for '16 if he can remain relevant for the next 5 years.

[hands11]

President Clinton on Morning Joe today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/ ... /#45205500

He's still smart.

Government/Private partnership.

I tried pitching that idea 20 pages ago when we were talking about solar and infrastructure.

It made to much common sense to be excepted to some here. We need lower taxes, less regulation and pure private industry capitalism. That seems to be their only solution. Never mind that other countries will continue to outpace us if we do it that way because they are doing government and private industry partnerships.

- you said the government should make work investing in specific industries. clinton is pushing for an infrastructure bank who holds money that will be specifically be invested in infrastructure and funded voluntarily and still operated under free-market principles (North Dakota oil drilling, energy grid upgrades, broadband/cell tower upgrades, light rail, etc) and not specifically "going green" ideals.

- lower taxes, less regulation, pure private industry capitalism is THE rallying cry of tea partiers - the party that you've denounced repeatedly.

- what I think clinton disingenuously glossed over when discussing other nations like Germany is that America is freakin huge compared to those countries, does not have a parliamentary system, and does not have as ingrained a welfare-state culture.

re: dobro about election reform:

Obama was definitely the best choice in '08 and looks like to be the best choice in '12 again. I just wish that there's a higher caliber of candidate willing to throw their hat in the ring. I'd much rather have a governor with a proven track record of running the executive - and being held accountable for their actions than a never-ending parade of senators with questionable/brief/and-or muddled voting histories.

Chris Christie is an intriguing candidate for '16 if he can remain relevant for the next 5 years.

First off, I talked about the infrastructure bank a ton when we were talking about that.
Two - Clinton specifically spoke about Green energy. He spoke about the grid because of SD and wind.
Three - he didnt gloss over that they were a parliamentary system. He specifically brought it up on his own.


In closing

Ohio Issue 2 - to break the unions rights to collectively bargain - failed. It will be repealed.

Maine Question 1 - end of same day voter registration bill has been defeated.

Mississippi Initiative 26 - Personhood Amendment - a fertilized egg is a person yes 43% no 57 % with 19% of the vote in. This one hasnt been called yet but it is looking like it will fail.

[popper]

I usually vote Repub although I supported and voted for the first black US governer, Democrat Doug Wilder. Virginia, considered a very conservative state at the time, made history with a lot of white conservative support for Gov. Wilder. He turned out to be an outstanding choice.

The reason Repubs want Obama's policies to fail is because we disagree with almost every one of them. In the beginning of the Clinton admin. we wanted his policies (the liberal ones) to fail as well. When he agreed to welfare reform and other Repub priorities I cheered him.

Repubs overwhelmingly supported Colin Powell as a potential Repub nominee for Pres. I believe he would have won in a landslide had he decided to run. He would have become the first black Pres., a Repub.

I think some members of this board are mistaken when they assert that Repubs have a problem supporting people of color for high office. We will support anyone who believes in and promotes conservative principals.

There is nothing personal about my position against Pres. Obama's policies nor was there when I vociferously criticized Pres. Bush when I disagreed with his policies. I wanted him to fail to enact policies that I disagreed with.

The Repub House has passed numerous bills in the last two years (many with bipartisan support) that would improve the economy but the Senate won't take them up. I laugh when Pres Obama and Sen Reid call the Repubs obstructionist. Of course they are, as are Dems, when they oppose a certain policy. What's the big deal?

I don't see race as a defining issue at this point in our history.

Just curious. Can you show me one of these bills that you think is a good idea and show me the bipartisan support.

The second one listed had 57 Dem votes in favor - many others do as well .............. why are the Dems obstructionist?

Review of Federal Regulations
H.Res. 72 - Passed by the House (391-28) on February 11, 2011


The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
H.R. 872 - Senate has taken no action to date


The Energy Tax Prevention Act
H.R. 910 - Senate has taken no action to date


Disapproval of FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations
H.J.Res. 37 - Senate has taken no action to date


The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act
H.R. 2018 - Senate has taken no action to date


Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act
H.R. 1315 - Senate has taken no action to date


Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act
H.R. 2587 - Senate has taken no action to date


Transparency In Regulatory Analysis Of Impacts On The Nation
H.R. 2401 - Senate has taken no action to date


Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act
H.R. 2681 - Senate has taken no action to date

[hands11]

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2011/ ... ower-grab/

Is this where you got that from Pop

or was it.
http://majorityleader.gov/jobstracker/

I only see you posted some merger number of support for 1 or 2 of those.

[popper]

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/want-to-know-where-all-the-house-passed-jobs-bills-are-stuck-in-the-senate-is-harry-reid-enabling-obamas-power-grab/

Is this where you got that from Pop

or was it.
http://majorityleader.gov/jobstracker/

I only see you posted some merger number of support for 1 or 2 of those.

I don't understand your comment. You asked for facts, I provided them. You and I both know why the Senate won't take these bills up. In case you don't, I'll provide the answer. They want to protect their Dem members from casting a vote in the negative that would cost them support among their constituents. Repubs do it too of course, but let's not pretend and mislead the public as Pres. Obama and Sen Reid do that Repubs are uniquely obstructionist. That sort of B.S. only works on ignorant people.

[popper]

Hands - Your comment below.

In closing

OH Issue 2 to break the unions rights to collectively bargain - failed. It will be repealed.
Maine Question 1 - end of same day voter registration bill has been defeated.
Mississippi Initiative 26 - Personhood Amendment - a fertilized egg is a person yes 43% no 57 % with 19% of the vote in. This one hasnt been called yet but it is looking like it will fail.

My response - In a democracy, voters get what they deserve. Ohio had just begun to create jobs again and now the moving trucks will start to move in just as they have in CA and IL. Any business that can will migrate south to more hospitable climes. It is not a victory for Ohio, it is a death knell for suffering families who desperately need work.

[DCZards]

My response - In a democracy, voters get what they deserve. Ohio had just begun to create jobs again and now the moving trucks will start to move in just as they have in CA and IL. Any business that can will migrate south to more hospitable climes. It is not a victory for Ohio, it is a death knell for suffering families who desperately need work.

So those "dumb voters" in Ohio just don't know what's good for them. But, of course, you do. People don't like it when you try to take away their rights. This IS what democracy looks like, popper.

BTW, pass Obama's jobs plan and there are more, not less, jobs in Ohio and other states.

[fugop]

I haven't personally met any Repub that is racist. Not saying they don't exist but in my adult life I have never met one. Sure, I've heard jokes and stereotypical comments about every ethnicity, as I'm sure you have as well, but I never got the impression that the comments were anything more than macho banter.

I have no doubt there are racist in this country but I can assure you that they don't all reside in the Repub party nor are they all white. I can also assure you that the vast majority of Repubs that I kwow would condemn such behavior in the strongest terms. Prejudice is ugly but will always be with us. I grew up poor in the south and the wealthy whites called us "white trash." It hurt but what are you going to do. They call me white trash and I call them silver spoons. Life goes on and so must we. Prejudice is ignorance and everyone I hang out with and have befriended over the years understand this.

Once again, I don't want Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. to succeed because I think our country would be worse off, not because of their race, sexual proclivity or any other irrelavent differentiator.

No one's calling you racist. You're simply blind, though, if you've never met a racist Republican. I'm from KY, and am still involved in KY politics. Dime a dozen -- racist Democrats too, for that matter.

These are the actual bills you posted, by the way:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-hr72/show

H.Res.72 - Directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effect on jobs and economic growth.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h872/show

H.R.872 - Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011

To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h910/show

H.R.910 - Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-hj37/show

H.J.Res.37 - Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2018/show

H.R.2018 - Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1315/show

H.R.1315 - Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2587/show

H.R.2587 - Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act

To prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2401/show

H.R.2401 - Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011

To require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2681/show

H.R.2681 - Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011

To provide additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities, and for other purposes.

That's a joke. Menial efforts to undo some decent environmental protections, a couple of attempts to bog administrative agencies down in paperwork, unfettering finance and kneecapping worker protections. Awesome.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Chalmers Johnson (rip) has written extensively about foreign policy since WWII.
I heartily recommend the Blowback trilogy.

If we want to have better relations with the rest of the world, we could
start by ending the garrisoning of the planet by US troops.

Anyone who has issues with withdrawing should ask themselves how
they think the American people would react to having foreign troops
in bases on American soil. These bases have little to nothing to do with
actual defense - how could they? they're not on US soil - but are more
about protecting anti-democractic regimes and multi-natl corps that
are not acting in the interests of the local peoples.

Agreed.

While I was stationed in Korea, I took leave and visited the demilitarized zone (DMZ). While there I saw on the other side of the fence/wall, a North Korean officer. Although he was in dress uniform, he appeared to be laid-back and in chill mode, just like me. IIRC he had a sightseeing camera, too. I remember noticing his uniform (one similar to marine corp olive with red). It was surreal.

I recall thinking how that guy could kill me or vice versa--but I had no feeling of ill will at all toward that particular human being.

I had an epiphany while in Korea, dobrojim. I came to believe that if the US just got out of that country PERHAPS South Korea and North Korea would reunite. What exactly were we doing there? I know the history of tanks rolling down from the North, but there were reasons for me to believe times had changed. Is the US presence a necessary deterrent and are we welcome in these countries?

I went a lot of places where I had that same feeling. (Guam, Okinawa, Japan) Didn't always feel welcome. Got some great sight seeing and shopping done over there, and enjoyed various cultures. However, I felt the US didn't need to be there.

[Zonkerbl]

H.R.2401 - Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011

To require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2681/show

.

That's a joke. Menial efforts to undo some decent environmental protections, a couple of attempts to bog administrative agencies down in paperwork, unfettering finance and kneecapping worker protections. Awesome.

A friend of mine in the House Commerce and Energy Committee wrote this one. It asks my agency to lead an interagency team to take the next logical step in regulatory analysis, use computable general equilibrium analysis to analyze the cumulative impacts of the most expensive regulations EPA has put out recently or is planning on.

The Sierra Club lobbyists immediately put out a bunch of completely erroneous talking points about it -- that this analysis is being done already (it isn't), that it would unnecessarily delay the regulations its analyzing (it didn't), etc. In its original state it was simply a command that someone do the high quality analysis that EPA refuses to do. To examine the total competitiveness impacts of imposing the $60 billion ozone rule, the $11 billion utility rule, the $5 billion boiler rule, the who-knows-how-expensive greenhouse gas rule, which EPA refuses to do. It was bipartisan and had a chance of passing the Senate, but for purely political opposition from environmental lobbyists who hate the idea of rigorous economic analysis of the net benefits of the restrictions they want.

Then, just before the bill hit the floor, some idiot Republican added an amendment that would delay the implementation of the utility rule and the coal ash rule until the analysis will done, confirming the Sierra Club's talking points and turning it into a purely partisan bill, destroying its slim chance of ever passing.

Rrrrrr! Annoying. And I probably would have run the computable general equilibrium model too.

Oh well.

[nate33]

BTW, pass Obama's jobs plan and there are more, not less, jobs in Ohio and other states.

Yeah, let's ramp up the debt even more. What could possibly go wrong?

[DCZards]

BTW, pass Obama's jobs plan and there are more, not less, jobs in Ohio and other states.

Yeah, let's ramp up the debt even more. What could possibly go wrong?

Obama's plan includes revenue increases that pays for what he's proposing. Problem is the Repubs are afraid of angering the ultra-wealthy...or is it Grover Norquist they're afraid of?

[nate33]

Obama's handpicked White House Council of Economic Advisors calculates that his last stimulus plan cost $278,000 per job "saved".

And that's using the White House's wildly optimistic numbers on the amount of jobs actually saved. When the Stimulus Plan was first debated, unemployment was 7.3%. After the Stimulus, it was 9.1%.

Sorry, with that track record, I'm not interested in more of his jobs plans. An estimate of his new plan has a cost of $312,000 per job created.

[popper]

My response - In a democracy, voters get what they deserve. Ohio had just begun to create jobs again and now the moving trucks will start to move in just as they have in CA and IL. Any business that can will migrate south to more hospitable climes. It is not a victory for Ohio, it is a death knell for suffering families who desperately need work.

So those "dumb voters" in Ohio just don't know what's good for them. But, of course, you do. People don't like it when you try to take away their rights. This IS what democracy looks like, popper.

BTW, pass Obama's jobs plan and there are more, not less, jobs in Ohio and other states.

I have my opinion on the outcome. I hope I'm wrong and the resurrection of collectivie bargaining rights will enure to the benefit of Ohio voters. The evidence, as far as I can determine, is not supportive of this conclusion. When I look at CA and IL I see financial ruin right around the corner. We shall see, maybe I'm dumb - I don't rule out that possibility either.

[DCZards]

Sorry, with that track record, I'm not interested in more of his jobs plans. An estimate of his new plan has a cost of $312,000 per job created.

Damn, Nate, where do you find this stuff? Who the hell wrote this so-called analysis and what makes their information any more credible than the 50,000 other bloggers who have an opinion about Obama's jobs plan?

Edit to add: Nate, I did a little research of my own and found out that the guy who posted the "analysis" you cited, Tyler Durden, is a celebrity gossip blogger with blogs with titles like "Brett Ratner lied about banging Olivia Munn"; "Demi Lovato has red hair now"; and "Is Katy Perry pregnant?"

[nate33]

DCZards, Tyler Durden is the name of the anarcho-terrorist in the movie Fight Club. It's a stage name utilized by the four or so founders/contributors of the very popular economics blog, Zerohedge.

[montestewart]

If there's no season, maybe rent seekers squaring off against atheists in a battle royal could provide some distraction.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11 ... -tree-tax/

[fugop]

H.R.2401 - Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011

To require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2681/show

.

That's a joke. Menial efforts to undo some decent environmental protections, a couple of attempts to bog administrative agencies down in paperwork, unfettering finance and kneecapping worker protections. Awesome.

A friend of mine in the House Commerce and Energy Committee wrote this one. It asks my agency to lead an interagency team to take the next logical step in regulatory analysis, use computable general equilibrium analysis to analyze the cumulative impacts of the most expensive regulations EPA has put out recently or is planning on.

The Sierra Club lobbyists immediately put out a bunch of completely erroneous talking points about it -- that this analysis is being done already (it isn't), that it would unnecessarily delay the regulations its analyzing (it didn't), etc. In its original state it was simply a command that someone do the high quality analysis that EPA refuses to do. To examine the total competitiveness impacts of imposing the $60 billion ozone rule, the $11 billion utility rule, the $5 billion boiler rule, the who-knows-how-expensive greenhouse gas rule, which EPA refuses to do. It was bipartisan and had a chance of passing the Senate, but for purely political opposition from environmental lobbyists who hate the idea of rigorous economic analysis of the net benefits of the restrictions they want.

Then, just before the bill hit the floor, some idiot Republican added an amendment that would delay the implementation of the utility rule and the coal ash rule until the analysis will done, confirming the Sierra Club's talking points and turning it into a purely partisan bill, destroying its slim chance of ever passing.

Rrrrrr! Annoying. And I probably would have run the computable general equilibrium model too.

Oh well.

In a healthy political system, this sort of analysis would be great. We should do it anyway. But the Environmental lobby groups have it exactly right; the sole motivation for the bill is to kill the regs. If the analysis reveals competitive costs per life saved, or whatever measure you guys want to apply, the opponents of the regs will just shift their positions.

I understand that, as an economist, concerns about the abuse of very basic analysis have to look idiotic, but they've been a political and legal battleground for generations at this point. Conservative legal activists have been pushing for (and winning) the courts to strike down regs that don't meet certain cost-benefit standards, most of which are tendentious. It's an absurd and dismal debate.

In any case, this isn't a jobs bill.

[Zonkerbl]

Hm. I'm not aware of any regulations that have been struck down because they don't meet a cost benefit standard. In fact, the legislation of the Clean Air Act explicitly states, and a Supreme Court decision confirms, that costs have NO STANDING in setting standards for CAA criteria pollutants. None.

I know a lot of rules have been withdrawn by agencies after OMB told them they do not meet cost-benefit standards. I know a lot of examples where the President has stepped in and changed rules because of cost objections by industry. I know some examples where the courts have sent rules back to agencies for additional analysis. Don't know any examples where a court has flat out struck down a rule for failing a cost-benefit criterion.

And the reason that is is because the rulewriting agencies are in charge of writing the cost benefit analysis. I only know of one example in my career where an agency has had the cojones to submit a proposed rule to OMB where the costs explicitly exceeded the benefits.

Frankly I think it's pointless to have cost benefit analysis if the rulewriting agency is in charge of the analysis. That's INSANE.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

If there's no season, maybe rent seekers squaring off against atheists in a battle royal could provide some distraction.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11 ... -tree-tax/

It would be another moment that would make me wish I were 25 years younger. Tyler Durden was on to something.

I think men need to know how to fight, how to hit and get hit, how to roll with the punches, how to ground and pound, and how to do jujitsu. Not to hurt one another per se, but to promote wellness. On those occasions where an actual fight went down, there would need to be seconds and safety folks around. Even getting one's butt kicked (but avoiding serious injury) is therapeutic, IMO. I don't think our leaders and politicos in general (both conservatives and liberals) would be so fearful if they were all pretty skilled combatants.

As long as the rules were agreed to, and folks were in there voluntarily against someone close to their skill level; I think rent seekers v atheists would be a great distraction, monte.



Those guys above were friends who didn't want to fight, but got paid to do so. They beat the heck out of each other and were still friends later. However, rent seekers v atheists might be more like these guys:





Not the best of friends ...

(RIP Joe Frazier. His and Heavy D's deaths have been really sad stuff for me).