ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th January 2017, 06:55 AM   #81
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,362
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
They don't want a handout and they're too proud to accept Government assistance. If they weren't, they'd have voted Democrat. These people want to work. They want their jobs back that NAFTA shipped overseas. They want their coal mines reopened and the EPA restrictions that closed them removed.
I'll just pick this point to address, but there's just as much "wrong" with the rest.

Even in those areas where EPA restrictions do not apply (and remember they're there to preserve air quality and protect the environment but let's pretend that none of this matters any more and the our future is smog-shaped), gas is overwhelmingly preferred as a fuel because it's far, far cheaper. The coal jobs won't come back if the EPA legislation is repealed.

Let's imagine that the price of natural gas shoots up so that coal is cost-effective again. If that the case then the growth will be in the West where surface mining is much, much cheaper and much less labour intensive. The coal jobs won't come back if the price of natural gas increases.

The only way that the jobs would come back is if the US power generation is forced to take a minimum amount of coal from deep-mined sourced. This would result in a significant increase in the price of electricity. Government interference to deliberately make a market less cost effective doesn't sound like GOP policy to me.

Of course this has been explained several times but you choose to ignore it.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 07:10 AM   #82
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I'll just pick this point to address, but there's just as much "wrong" with the rest.

Even in those areas where EPA restrictions do not apply (and remember they're there to preserve air quality and protect the environment but let's pretend that none of this matters any more and the our future is smog-shaped), gas is overwhelmingly preferred as a fuel because it's far, far cheaper. The coal jobs won't come back if the EPA legislation is repealed.

Let's imagine that the price of natural gas shoots up so that coal is cost-effective again. If that the case then the growth will be in the West where surface mining is much, much cheaper and much less labour intensive. The coal jobs won't come back if the price of natural gas increases.

The only way that the jobs would come back is if the US power generation is forced to take a minimum amount of coal from deep-mined sourced. This would result in a significant increase in the price of electricity. Government interference to deliberately make a market less cost effective doesn't sound like GOP policy to me.

Of course this has been explained several times but you choose to ignore it.
If coal regulation is not causing it's decline, then do we still need the regulation?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 07:12 AM   #83
Norman Alexander
Master Poster
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Sorry for such a late reply. I just found this.

I believe with such an obvious display of hatred for Americans, your post has you pegged as yet another reason the Democrats have lost so many election contests recently.

This thing about thinking one is better than someone else and denigrating so many million people within the population is disturbing.

The people you show so much contempt for ARE America. They don't have a silver spoon and most have a callus or two on their hands. These people work hard and pay their taxes. They're sick and tired of being told how they should live their lives to better suit someone that has no idea of what it means to worry about paying an electric bill or buying groceries, one or the other but not both. They're driving older vehicles far beyond their mechanical limits and keeping them on the road with constant costly repairs that they usually make themselves. Ever wonder why there are so many Autozones and Napa parts places etc in these rural areas/small towns? And when time comes their old rattle trap finally lays down, they're buying used and making payments on a 10+ year old vehicle because to them, it's as new as they can afford.

They don't want a handout and they're too proud to accept Government assistance. If they weren't, they'd have voted Democrat. These people want to work. They want their jobs back that NAFTA shipped overseas. They want their coal mines reopened and the EPA restrictions that closed them removed.

They know what party gave them NAFTA, they know what party made war on coal. They know what party promised a stronger middle class and then did everything possible to destroy it. And so they voted. This is why Republicans now control every level of Government. This is why Democrats and their policies were rejected Nationwide. These people don't want so called "progressive policies" shoved down their throats anymore. These people have gagged on the "socialist progressive" agenda for the last time. Face it, Liberalism the experiment has failed. And not because people are stupid, it's because they're smart. Chris B.
I actually thank goodness Trump won too. But not for the reasons you state. Because I know that they are completely fallacious and a series of instantaneous lies that Trump made up on the fly during the campaign. That's his MO - he even (ghost-)wrote a book explaining it: Select your mark, find out what they like, agree with what they like so you can be their buddy and they agree to your terms and demands, then when they are on your side take them to the cleaners then kick them to the curb. See if you can guess which stage you are up to currently.

So the reality is already obvious, even before Jan 20. Trump is not going to drain any swamps, and he is going to do nothing to bring back jobs, NAFTA-lost or not. American coal production will not increase. There will be no increase in new modern American-made vehicle manufacture, etc., etc. The reasons should be painfully obvious but a thick skin doesn't help so let me give you a clue or two: It's cheaper overseas...and American firms are like Trump - it's all only about the money. See if you can figure it out from there.

But the prime reason I like Trump winning is that I'm not American. So now some other countries including my own can take over being "world leaders" instead. We have better education, better medical schemes, and more importantly far better attitudes to mutual cooperation and trade. You Yanks can go back to the Stone Age. We'll stay in the 21st century, thanks.

The only thing that WILL increase in the USA will be gun sales and subsequent gun deaths (as though they weren't appallingly bad enough already). Because uneducated Americans will start seeing enemies everywhere they go, and will justify their need to "defend themselves" to mutual death. ISIS won't need to send any terrorists to kill Americans. They are already doing a good enough job to themselves without outside assistance. And now Trump is encouraging this trend. Well, at least it will make job applications easier with fewer applicants available...
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 07:40 AM   #84
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,224
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If coal regulation is not causing it's decline, then do we still need the regulation?
Because the goal of regulation is not to make it decline, it is to make it so that the coal mining that occurs is done properly.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 07:50 AM   #85
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Because the goal of regulation is not to make it decline, it is to make it so that the coal mining that occurs is done properly.
But if coal mining is so rare, then it is less dangerous.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 07:56 AM   #86
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,224
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But if coal mining is so rare, then it is less dangerous.
But that doesn't mean that what coal mining there is isn't dangerous.

As long as there is coal mining, there is a reason to have regulations.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 08:00 AM   #87
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
But that doesn't mean that what coal mining there is isn't dangerous.

As long as there is coal mining, there is a reason to have regulations.
Not true. Suppose we implemented regulations with the goal to cap deaths at 100 per year in the industry. We determine that is the acceptable level. If employment with deaths falls bow 100, then there is no longer a need for the regulation.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 08:04 AM   #88
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Not true. Suppose we implemented regulations with the goal to cap deaths at 100 per year in the industry. We determine that is the acceptable level. If employment with deaths falls bow 100, then there is no longer a need for the regulation.

And if there are only 100 coal miners then their employer can implement policies so dangerous that everybody dies and by your metric this is okay.

I think you need to deal in percentages in this issue.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 08:16 AM   #89
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,362
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If coal regulation is not causing it's decline, then do we still need the regulation?
To protect the general population and the environment.

For example, in the UK air quality legislation was introduced back in the 1960s (and reinforced repeatedly since then) in order to stop tens of thousands of preventable deaths annually.

Since then there has been a big shift away from coal. It's no longer used to power trains, it's used less and less to generate electricity and used less and less to heat homes. There are a variety of reasons for this but it mostly comes down to cost (it's a lot cheaper to produce electricity and run trains on other fuel sources) and convenience (a coal fire is a pain even though it does provide good ambience).

The regulations remain in place because they also apply to other fuels (and thus keep air quality within acceptable bounds) and to ensure that those who still use coal do so responsibly.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 08:51 AM   #90
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
To protect the general population and the environment.

For example, in the UK air quality legislation was introduced back in the 1960s (and reinforced repeatedly since then) in order to stop tens of thousands of preventable deaths annually.

Since then there has been a big shift away from coal. It's no longer used to power trains, it's used less and less to generate electricity and used less and less to heat homes. There are a variety of reasons for this but it mostly comes down to cost (it's a lot cheaper to produce electricity and run trains on other fuel sources) and convenience (a coal fire is a pain even though it does provide good ambience).

The regulations remain in place because they also apply to other fuels (and thus keep air quality within acceptable bounds) and to ensure that those who still use coal do so responsibly.
But here is the thing. If you have a tenth as many coal plant, it can emit 5x as much pollutants while still preventing those deaths when there was 10x as many plants.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 08:59 AM   #91
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,373
Not really, since the coal plants cause the damage in their immediate environment.
So anyone living near one stills gets particulates in their lungs.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:00 AM   #92
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,362
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But here is the thing. If you have a tenth as many coal plant, it can emit 5x as much pollutants while still preventing those deaths when there was 10x as many plants.
That is true but it also ignores the fact that the same legislation applies to all forms of, say, electricity generation.

The objective is to preserve air quality by ensuring that all generators at worst emit a certain amount of pollutants per kWh generated. Now it's true that some sources (for example renewables and nuclear) substantially undershoot that level but IMO that doesn't allow other sources to pollute more, not least because changes in the generation mix could suddenly make it worse again.

Even if all regulation was abandoned, the coal jobs are still not coming back because:
  • Gas is cheaper and looks to be for the forseeable future
  • Open cast mining is cheaper than deep mining so if coal does stage a comeback, it'll be open cast mines in Wyoming with a handful of employees who will be satisfying the demand
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:04 AM   #93
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
That is true but it also ignores the fact that the same legislation applies to all forms of, say, electricity generation.

But that isn't always true.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:08 AM   #94
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But that isn't always true.
Is there an underlying point you're driving at?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:10 AM   #95
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But here is the thing. If you have a tenth as many coal plant, it can emit 5x as much pollutants while still preventing those deaths when there was 10x as many plants.
Even if that were true: So? Our goal should be to always do better.
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:17 AM   #96
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Is there an underlying point you're driving at?
If regulation is put into place to achieve a goal, and then they become no longer necessary to achieve that goal, they should be removed.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:18 AM   #97
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by Donal View Post
Even if that were true: So? Our goal should be to always do better.
Better doesn't have a fixed meaning. Everyone has a different definition of what better is.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:22 AM   #98
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If regulation is put into place to achieve a goal, and then they become no longer necessary to achieve that goal, they should be removed.

Why waste government time and money repealing the irrelevant?

How does one establish with any certainty that the legislation is no longer necessary? - This requires more government time and money which equates to more taxation.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:23 AM   #99
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,340
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
They don't want a handout and they're too proud to accept Government assistance. If they weren't, they'd have voted Democrat. These people want to work. They want their jobs back that NAFTA shipped overseas. They want their coal mines reopened and the EPA restrictions that closed them removed.
And here is the fantasy. Even if manufacturing returned the USA those factories are going to be full of robots, not people. Of course automation killed more jobs than outsourcing but that's one of those pesky facts we've told don't matter anymore. Likewise you can tap dance about 'clean coal' but its still nasty dirty stuff that's awkward to transport, especially when thanks to fracking nice, clean, easy to transport natural gas is abundant. Trump and co. can undo all the EPA regs they like, gas is still going to be abundant and easier to use.

Cold hard truth is that those jobs are gone. Once upon a time people made a good living manufacturing steam locomotives and operating canal barges. I'm sure those people were desperate to turn back the clock and I'm sure they had some bogeyman to blame as well.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:29 AM   #100
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Why waste government time and money repealing the irrelevant?

How does one establish with any certainty that the legislation is no longer necessary? - This requires more government time and money which equates to more taxation.
Regulation should be priced with the monitoring of the regulation included. It isn't checking to see if it is no longer needed. It is evaluating regulation through its lifetime for effectiveness.

Passing laws without bothering to find out if they worked is a terrible budget balancing strategy.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:33 AM   #101
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Regulation should be priced with the monitoring of the regulation included. It isn't checking to see if it is no longer needed. It is evaluating regulation through its lifetime for effectiveness.
Does this happen in the US? Heck, I don't even know if it happens in the UK.


Quote:
Passing laws without bothering to find out if they worked is a terrible budget balancing strategy.
This one happens all the time.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:34 AM   #102
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,362
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If regulation is put into place to achieve a goal, and then they become no longer necessary to achieve that goal, they should be removed.
In the case of "clean air" legislation in the UK it still has a place on the grounds that its remit extends beyond burning coal.


edited to add...

Of course the point is that even if the legislation were repealed (and whether or not that is a good idea), the coal jobs are still not coming back to the Appalachians because:
  • Gas is used in preference for economic reasons
  • Even if coal were used it's be open cast mined Wyoming coal

Last edited by The Don; 5th January 2017 at 09:36 AM.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:36 AM   #103
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Does this happen in the US? Heck, I don't even know if it happens in the UK.




This one happens all the time.
Which is why im laying out here a better strategy for evaluating regulation.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:37 AM   #104
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Which is why im laying out here a better strategy for evaluating regulation.
I think it might be mush more expensive in terms of government resource.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:37 AM   #105
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,362
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Which is why im laying out here a better strategy for evaluating regulation.
it's not going to bring back the Appalachian coal jobs though, which is where this got started.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:38 AM   #106
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
it's not going to bring back the Appalachian coal jobs though, which is where this got started.
I'm indifferent to that question.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:46 AM   #107
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Better doesn't have a fixed meaning. Everyone has a different definition of what better is.
Fewer dead people and less environmental damage...can we agree there?
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 09:50 AM   #108
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,855
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Which is why im laying out here a better strategy for evaluating regulation.
I'm not seeing the underlying logic of your plan.

Regulations are to do "x"
X is achieved.
Repeal regulations.
x remains because ?????

The Regulations are there to ensure that x is achieved and, at a minimum, maintained. Repealing the regulation once a goal is achieved does not allow you to maintain the goal you previously set yourself. This is the equivalent of telling someone who has improved their health through a strict diet and exercise program that, since they have achieved their target weight, they can forget the regimen that allowed them achieve that and resume eating whatever they want and forgoing exercise.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 04:35 PM   #109
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Can I just ask then, what is it you expect Trump to do to achieve what his support have voted for? how will he achieve what he's stated he will do? And, because it's unclear to me, what is it that he is intending to do?
Exactly what he has been doing, and he's not even been sworn into office yet.

Check the latest news from Ford. They're cancelling the 1.6 billion dollar plant in Mexico and reinvesting in MI.

Carrier in IN , keeping some jobs instead of sending them to Mexico.

Now for what I expect from Trump, more of the same. I fully realize these jobs are just a drop in the bucket but it's a start. Obama could have done this, but he didn't. Why?

I expect my health care cost to return to near pre-Obamacare rates.

EPA regulations enacted specifically to deter coal mining and use, oil drilling and energy production are to be trashed.

I expect the border to be secured and yes a wall built where possible, terrain to be taken into account for areas a wall cannot be placed.

I expect taxes to be lowered for businesses within the US making them more profitable. I expect them to move production back into the US as a result of these tax cuts.

I expect factories that relocate outside the US to pay a tax on products they import back into the US. Penalties for companies that throw US workers under the bus.

And, I realize this will take time. The US has been gutted and it cannot be fixed overnight. Nobody expects a full recovery in a short time, but we do expect to see improvements. Once the economy takes off and confidence returns it will further fuel our recovery.

This is not all I expect to see, but we're already off to a good start.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 04:52 PM   #110
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Exactly what he has been doing, and he's not even been sworn into office yet.
Letting Goldman Sachs run our economy? Appointing people to head agencies they have vowed to disband? Hang out with Kanye instead of take security briefings? Praise a fascist dictator?

Quote:
Check the latest news from Ford. They're cancelling the 1.6 billion dollar plant in Mexico and reinvesting in MI.
No, they are expanding another factory in Mexico and "modernizing" ie automating facilities in the US

Quote:
Carrier in IN , keeping some jobs instead of sending them to Mexico.
Carrier got $7 million to keep 300 jobs here for a few months, then ship them to Mexico and automated its facilities here. Do you not follow the news?

Besides, whatever happen top "the government should not be picking winners"? Why do they need the tax payers to bribe them?

Quote:
Now for what I expect from Trump, more of the same.
Well, on that we agree.

Quote:
I fully realize these jobs are just a drop in the bucket but it's a start. Obama could have done this, but he didn't. Why?
Because its smoke and mirrors and will actually cost us more money and jobs? Because he saved 1.2 million jobs when he and Congress stopped GM from going under? Because he knows how economies work far better than a conman who lived off his daddy's charity his whole life?

Quote:
I expect my health care cost to return to near pre-Obamacare rates.
You know the ACA actually slowed the increase in rates, right? Could you perhaps explain how Trump is going to improve on the ACA?

Quote:
EPA regulations enacted specifically to deter coal mining and use, oil drilling and energy production are to be trashed.
Coal is dying because it is a less efficient way of getitng energy than oil. the free market is killing it. And what are you going to tell all those people who are now going to start dying from the waste products being pumped in the air and water? Your gas won't even get cheaper.

Quote:
I expect the border to be secured and yes a wall built where possible, terrain to be taken into account for areas a wall cannot be placed.
So, you want a wall except for where you don't want one? Then what is the point? Besides, we actually have fewer undocumented aliens here now than we have in a long time. Al la wall does is stick us with a $66 billion tab for some government contractors.

Quote:
I expect taxes to be lowered for businesses within the US making them more profitable.
Yes, taxes will be lowered, but since there will be less infrastructure and the job pool with be less healthy and less educated, and banks will have fewer incentives to lend to small businesses, there will be less reason to start one.

Quote:
I expect them to move production back into the US as a result of these tax cuts.
Why do they need a bribe? What about the cost of labor? Should they be allowed to pay the wages they pay in Mexico or China? Again, see my point about infrastructure and employment pool.

Quote:
I expect factories that relocate outside the US to pay a tax on products they import back into the US. Penalties for companies that throw US workers under the bus.
Like ones that make ugly ties and ill fitting suits?

Quote:
And, I realize this will take time.
Ya, like a month after never.

Quote:
The US has been gutted
No it hasn't

Quote:
and it cannot be fixed overnight.
Or at all if we use the plan you and Fred's kid apaprently have.

Quote:
Nobody expects a full recovery in a short time,
Except if the black guy is in charge. Then, he needs to bring back all the jobs, get everyone a master's degree and cure cancer in his first 100 days.

Quote:
but we do expect to see improvements.
Quote:
Once the economy takes off and confidence returns it will further fuel our recovery.
Unless it all continues to be sent directly to the top .1%. Which it looks like it will

Quote:
This is not all I expect to see, but we're already off to a good start.
Thanks, Obama!
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 05:39 PM   #111
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by Donal View Post
Fewer dead people and less environmental damage...can we agree there?
No. There is obviously a limit to that.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 05:40 PM   #112
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
I'm not seeing the underlying logic of your plan.

Regulations are to do "x"
X is achieved.
Repeal regulations.
x remains because ?????

The Regulations are there to ensure that x is achieved and, at a minimum, maintained. Repealing the regulation once a goal is achieved does not allow you to maintain the goal you previously set yourself. This is the equivalent of telling someone who has improved their health through a strict diet and exercise program that, since they have achieved their target weight, they can forget the regimen that allowed them achieve that and resume eating whatever they want and forgoing exercise.
You misread it. If we identify a regulation is no longer needed to achieve a goal, it can be gotten rid of. That is different than saying targets were achieved.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 06:22 PM   #113
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,100
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Not true. Suppose we implemented regulations with the goal to cap deaths at 100 per year in the industry. We determine that is the acceptable level. If employment with deaths falls bow 100, then there is no longer a need for the regulation.
But that's what some people call "stupid".

Suppose we try to get zero?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 06:23 PM   #114
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,100
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Exactly what he has been doing, and he's not even been sworn into office yet.

Check the latest news from Ford. They're cancelling the 1.6 billion dollar plant in Mexico and reinvesting in MI.

Carrier in IN , keeping some jobs instead of sending them to Mexico.

Now for what I expect from Trump, more of the same. I fully realize these jobs are just a drop in the bucket but it's a start. Obama could have done this, but he didn't. Why?

I expect my health care cost to return to near pre-Obamacare rates.

EPA regulations enacted specifically to deter coal mining and use, oil drilling and energy production are to be trashed.

I expect the border to be secured and yes a wall built where possible, terrain to be taken into account for areas a wall cannot be placed.

I expect taxes to be lowered for businesses within the US making them more profitable. I expect them to move production back into the US as a result of these tax cuts.

I expect factories that relocate outside the US to pay a tax on products they import back into the US. Penalties for companies that throw US workers under the bus.

And, I realize this will take time. The US has been gutted and it cannot be fixed overnight. Nobody expects a full recovery in a short time, but we do expect to see improvements. Once the economy takes off and confidence returns it will further fuel our recovery.

This is not all I expect to see, but we're already off to a good start.

Chris B.
I'll see your Ford and raise you a Macy's and Sears.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 06:28 PM   #115
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,433
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
But that's what some people call "stupid".

Suppose we try to get zero?
No. No moving goalposts.

I have always supported gay marriage. For a period of time in my life, LGBT advocates pressured for civil unions on the grounds that was good enough. I was ready to completely oppose all gay marriage for LYING to me that civil unions were enough.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 06:49 PM   #116
Mader Levap
Muse
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Oh. Em. Gee.

There is so much wrong with the above - virtually every sentence - it would take the better part of this morning to correct it. Since I haven't that kind of time, I'll just remark:

Wow.
I personally quite liked "They want their coal mines reopened and the EPA restrictions that closed them removed." part. Full reality detachment.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
This is why Democrats and their policies were rejected Nationwide.
Nope, they were not. It is needed to remind ad nausam that Hillary won popular vote. Don't worry, I know that quoted sentence was meaningless rethorical BS anyway.
__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 10:36 PM   #117
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
It should also be pointed out that left of center policies and referenda themselves actually tend to have a lot of public support. Like how if you call it the "Affordable Care Act" instead of "Obamacare", or you list the provisions of it, people actually come out in support of it.

Almost as if the GOP platform and policies have no basis in fact and are reliant on dog whistles and sound bites.
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 12:03 AM   #118
elemental
Student
 
elemental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No. No moving goalposts.

I have always supported gay marriage. For a period of time in my life, LGBT advocates pressured for civil unions on the grounds that was good enough. I was ready to completely oppose all gay marriage for LYING to me that civil unions were enough.
Stunning. I'm not following your logic here. Can you help me out?
elemental is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 12:10 AM   #119
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
I personally quite liked "They want their coal mines reopened and the EPA restrictions that closed them removed." part. Full reality detachment.


Nope, they were not. It is needed to remind ad nausam that Hillary won popular vote. Don't worry, I know that quoted sentence was meaningless rethorical BS anyway.
Reality, something the Left knows little of. The EPA regs that have been put on the books as a result of Obama's war on coal will be trashed. Mark it down.


Another dose of reality coming, are you ready? Hillary won the popular vote. However that does not elect a President. Sure California has a lot of people but mostly the rest of the Country kicked Democrats to the curb. Republicans rule now. They have the Presidency, the House and the Senate. But yes, Hillary had the popular vote. Congratulations. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2017, 12:12 AM   #120
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I'll see your Ford and raise you a Macy's and Sears.
Hmm, and how can Trump save them too? He's not even in office yet. Perhaps you should direct your concerns to King Obama?
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.