The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

I just came across this... I don't know if there is a rebuttal to it, but it is interesting.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=a2PHwqAs7BS0

Could have swore I saw a better rebuttal a couple days ago, but can't find it now, so here's one version of the reply if you want some decent details.

 

If you want a simpler version, I can just point out that the group that did that study is funded in part by Exxon.

[southsider2k5]

Could have swore I saw a better rebuttal a couple days ago, but can't find it now, so here's one version of the reply if you want some decent details.

 

If you want a simpler version, I can just point out that the group that did that study is funded in part by Exxon.

 

So essentially the simple version is "yes it is going to cost a lot for people, but deal with it because it makes things better." That is kinda what I expected. Its the same defense of every other program lately.

[NorthSideSox72]

So essentially the simple version is "yes it is going to cost a lot for people, but deal with it because it makes things better." That is kinda what I expected. Its the same defense of every other program lately.

What? That isn't what I said, and I don't think it is what Balta said.

 

[southsider2k5]

What? That isn't what I said, and I don't think it is what Balta said.

 

That's what I got out of the link he posted. Most of the arguements centered around, yeah it hurts now, but things will be better in the long run. Its the samething that is being used to justify all of the bailouts, universal health plans, carbon taxes, massive spending plans, etc.

[mr_genius]

i think Obama's 'green collar' jobs plan is crap

[NorthSideSox72]

That's what I got out of the link he posted. Most of the arguements centered around, yeah it hurts now, but things will be better in the long run. Its the samething that is being used to justify all of the bailouts, universal health plans, carbon taxes, massive spending plans, etc.

OK, I didn't read those responses. I am not of the belief that just any added cost is OK, that way. I'd need to see the details of any sort of cost balancing or cost crutch system before I could say whether or not it looks like a good use of upfront costs for later term gain, or not.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

i think Obama's 'green collar' jobs plan is crap

Why, exactly? Just curious.

 

[mr_genius]

Why, exactly? Just curious.

 

From what I've seen from the plan, and of course this could change I suppose, there really isn't going to be a net gain in jobs. If anything, jobs could be lost, as SS2k was alluding too. The 'Green Collar Job' rhetoric seems to be much more of a marketing campaign rather than anything else. Is the engineering and technology work going to be outsourced or done in the United States? This is a big question, if Obama is merely going to allow the work to be outsourced it's not going to be this big windfall of jobs.

 

Who exactly is getting hired in this new massive green collar sector? Obama has made it such a center peice and I don't even see a foundation forming as to when these jobs would begin.

[Balta1701]

That's what I got out of the link he posted. Most of the arguements centered around, yeah it hurts now, but things will be better in the long run. Its the samething that is being used to justify all of the bailouts, universal health plans, carbon taxes, massive spending plans, etc.

So, I assume you're strongly opposed to all "Free-trade" agreements on the same grounds?

[southsider2k5]

So, I assume you're strongly opposed to all "Free-trade" agreements on the same grounds?

 

Are we seriously going to do this?

 

Are you against the enviornmental movement because the leader of it is one of the biggest energy users in his home state?

 

Are you against taxes because this administration keeps trying to hire people who refused to pay theirs until they were in the public spotlight?

 

Are you against abortion because killing innocent people is wrong, or are you for the death penalty because it is OK to kill people with a justification?

 

Are you against the GM bailout because eventually they are going to have to go away because their product is harmful to the enviornment, and they are going to have to be replaced anyway?

 

Do you live in nature because the use and building of homes requires fossil fuels which harm the enviorment? Or are you against the enviornment.

 

We can go around in circles all day.

 

The point was the study did nothing to debunk the study, all it did was justify the ends of the enviornmentalists side. That was my point.

[Balta1701]

The point was the study did nothing to debunk the study, all it did was justify the ends of the enviornmentalists side. That was my point.

Fine, you want me to agree with you I can totally agree with you.

 

If I make these assumptions:

 

1. Fossil Fuels are infinite

2. Use of fossil fuels produces no negative consequences

 

Then yes, in all cases, moving to a green economy is wasteful and will cost quite a few jobs.

 

Basically, the argument that I posted is saying..."no, you can't make those 2 assumptions."

 

The reason I went with the free trade one is that it actually is a perfect example. A bill removing trade restrictions between 2 countries should allow the economies of both countries to function more efficiently by allowing items to be purchased at their lowest cost. But in certain sectors, removing those restrictions will always cost jobs. If Brazil and Minnesota both produce iron ore, but Brazil produces it more cheaply, allowing iron ore to be imported from Brazil will cut the cost of iron, but all your iron miners in Minnesota lose their jobs. If fossil fuel use has significant negative consequences, switching away from fossil fuels will remove those consequences, but the people who currently depend on fossil fuel production will lose their jobs.

 

If you assume fossil fuels are infinite and that there are no negative consequences to their use, then eliminating those jobs produces a net loss for the economy. The question about exactly where the balance of job losses versus job gains comes in depends in all cases on how exactly you model the total amount of fossil fuels available, the environmental consequences of their use, and the other external consequences of their use (i.e. support for an uncountable number of dictatorships, terrorism, etc.) If you assume that fossil fuels will remain cheap and plentiful, then you're going to lose a lot of jobs in your model. If you assume that the price of fossil fuels will spike again because we can't draw much more oil out of the ground, then you're going to gain a ton of jobs in your model. That is, for example, the difference between this Spanish model and the UCS model cited in the post I linked to.

 

Taking issue with the exact details of their model is the only appropriate, non-smear way to respond to their argument.

[southsider2k5]

Fine, you want me to agree with you I can totally agree with you.

 

If I make these assumptions:

 

1. Fossil Fuels are infinite

2. Use of fossil fuels produces no negative consequences

 

Then yes, in all cases, moving to a green economy is wasteful and will cost quite a few jobs.

 

Basically, the argument that I posted is saying..."no, you can't make those 2 assumptions."

 

The reason I went with the free trade one is that it actually is a perfect example. A bill removing trade restrictions between 2 countries should allow the economies of both countries to function more efficiently by allowing items to be purchased at their lowest cost. But in certain sectors, removing those restrictions will always cost jobs. If Brazil and Minnesota both produce iron ore, but Brazil produces it more cheaply, allowing iron ore to be imported from Brazil will cut the cost of iron, but all your iron miners in Minnesota lose their jobs. If fossil fuel use has significant negative consequences, switching away from fossil fuels will remove those consequences, but the people who currently depend on fossil fuel production will lose their jobs.

 

If you assume fossil fuels are infinite and that there are no negative consequences to their use, then eliminating those jobs produces a net loss for the economy. The question about exactly where the balance of job losses versus job gains comes in depends in all cases on how exactly you model the total amount of fossil fuels available, the environmental consequences of their use, and the other external consequences of their use (i.e. support for an uncountable number of dictatorships, terrorism, etc.) If you assume that fossil fuels will remain cheap and plentiful, then you're going to lose a lot of jobs in your model. If you assume that the price of fossil fuels will spike again because we can't draw much more oil out of the ground, then you're going to gain a ton of jobs in your model. That is, for example, the difference between this Spanish model and the UCS model cited in the post I linked to.

 

Taking issue with the exact details of their model is the only appropriate, non-smear way to respond to their argument.

 

And that is where the arguement against free trade is faulty, because it ignores the increase in consumer purchasing power from the decrease in prices. That increase in purchasing power leads to more spending in various industries and creates jobs to make up for the ones that are lost. Increase in purchasing power has been the single biggest factor in the expansion of the middle class after the trade agreements. But no one wants to talk about that. Start taking away that purchasing power, through say higher energy costs, and watch the middle class disappear. That is what happened during our last energy price spike, and that is exactly what will happen if Obama causes an artificial energy price spike with his green energy, cap and trade, and carbon tax plans. Its not the rich who will suffer, its the poor. Its not the rich who will lose their jobs, its the poor and middle class who work on oil derricks and in gas stations.

 

The very idea that people's livelihoods don't matter is laughable. If Barack Obama really believed that, he would walk right into the Big Three and tell them to go out of existance because they are the chief destructor of the enviornment on this planet. But in this case, of course, they won't. So why is a union autoworkers job more important than someone working in a coal mine or on an oil rig, when in the end, they are having the exact same effect on the planet?

 

[Balta1701]

And that is where the arguement against free trade is faulty, because it ignores the increase in consumer purchasing power from the decrease in prices. That increase in purchasing power leads to more spending in various industries and creates jobs to make up for the ones that are lost. Increase in purchasing power has been the single biggest factor in the expansion of the middle class after the trade agreements. But no one wants to talk about that. Start taking away that purchasing power, through say higher energy costs, and watch the middle class disappear. That is what happened during our last energy price spike, and that is exactly what will happen if Obama causes an artificial energy price spike with his green energy, cap and trade, and carbon tax plans. Its not the rich who will suffer, its the poor. Its not the rich who will lose their jobs, its the poor and middle class who work on oil derricks and in gas stations.

 

The very idea that people's livelihoods don't matter is laughable. If Barack Obama really believed that, he would walk right into the Big Three and tell them to go out of existance because they are the chief destructor of the enviornment on this planet. But in this case, of course, they won't. So why is a union autoworkers job more important than someone working in a coal mine or on an oil rig, when in the end, they are having the exact same effect on the planet?

I've highlighted the key point here...you have made EXACTLY the 2 assumptions I just said were required. First, you assumed that the price of fossil fuel energy will never increase, that fossil fuels will stay plentiful and will at no point in the near future have their cost exceed that of other options. You have implied this by assuming that switching to a greener economy directly translates to higher energy costs. And second, you once again assumed no negative consequences to their continued use. No climate change, no loss of economic productivity due to air pollution, none of it.

 

Your very argument undercuts your assumptions as well. You note that the last energy price spike caused a lot of pain. Does this not imply that fossil fuel based energy is totally vulnerable to exactly the sort of energy price spikes in the future that your argument implies we'll never have to worry about unless we switch to green power?

 

Your entire point assumes that the switch to green power is the only one that will produce either higher prices or job losses. I don't know which way wins in the short term, whether having a greener system will cost jobs or will create jobs. But over the medium term, and especially over the longer term (10 years and 20+ years) there is absolutely no question which one is going to produce a stronger economy over all. It won't even be close.

[southsider2k5]

I've highlighted the key point here...you have made EXACTLY the 2 assumptions I just said were required. First, you assumed that the price of fossil fuel energy will never increase, that fossil fuels will stay plentiful and will at no point in the near future have their cost exceed that of other options. You have implied this by assuming that switching to a greener economy directly translates to higher energy costs. And second, you once again assumed no negative consequences to their continued use. No climate change, no loss of economic productivity due to air pollution, none of it.

 

Your very argument undercuts your assumptions as well. You note that the last energy price spike caused a lot of pain. Does this not imply that fossil fuel based energy is totally vulnerable to exactly the sort of energy price spikes in the future that your argument implies we'll never have to worry about unless we switch to green power?

 

Your entire point assumes that the switch to green power is the only one that will produce either higher prices or job losses. I don't know which way wins in the short term, whether having a greener system will cost jobs or will create jobs. But over the medium term, and especially over the longer term (10 years and 20+ years) there is absolutely no question which one is going to produce a stronger economy over all. It won't even be close.

 

Its been pretty well demonstrated that it is going to take a huge new infrastructure to support our new energy grid. Are you really trying to tell me that you think compeletely rebuilding our entire energy system is going to be cheaper than the existing system? That is crazy. We are talking about trillions of dollars from the conservative estimates.

 

Plus I have never said NONE of the negatives would happen under fossil fuel. The arguement was that there will be MORE costs with a completely new system. Those are two very different arguements.

 

Your arguement would actually create a double impact. It would cause the instant end of all fossil fuel exploration, expansion and maintenance. There would be zero reason to continue it. Who is going to pay to improve or maintain those system when they know that by the time their major capital project is done, it will be worthless. Plus we still have to pay for a new system. I will guarentee you that the "green" transistion will cost more than staying on the system we have.

[NorthSideSox72]

Its been pretty well demonstrated that it is going to take a huge new infrastructure to support our new energy grid. Are you really trying to tell me that you think compeletely rebuilding our entire energy system is going to be cheaper than the existing system? That is crazy. We are talking about trillions of dollars from the conservative estimates.

 

Plus I have never said NONE of the negatives would happen under fossil fuel. The arguement was that there will be MORE costs with a completely new system. Those are two very different arguements.

 

Your arguement would actually create a double impact. It would cause the instant end of all fossil fuel exploration, expansion and maintenance. There would be zero reason to continue it. Who is going to pay to improve or maintain those system when they know that by the time their major capital project is done, it will be worthless. Plus we still have to pay for a new system. I will guarentee you that the "green" transistion will cost more than staying on the system we have.

This is why the move to alternative/renewable energies can't be done in one shot - it needs to be done over time.

 

[Balta1701]

Ah, this was what I was referring to earlier. Youd think I'd remember where I find these.

Now, Spain’s job-creation record is far from stellar—the country has had double-digit unemployment since the restoration of democracy thirty years ago, and today has a 14% jobless rate. Renewable-energy leadership has not been a panacea, as much as the current premier hopes it will pull Spain out of the current crisis.

 

But the study doesn’t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending. Specifically, each green job required on average 571,000 euros, compared with 259,000 euros in “average capital per worker” in the rest of the economy.

 

So how does that translate into outright job destruction? It’s simply a question of opportunity cost, the paper says: “The money spent by the government cannot, once committed to “green jobs”, be consumed or invested by private parties and therefore the jobs that would depend on such consumption and investment will disappear or not be created.”

 

On paper, that makes sense. But Spain’s support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenues—there were no special levies on corporate activity designed to underwrite clean energy.

 

The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it’s hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.

 

And just where did that study come from? Professor Gabriel Calzada is the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, a libertarian think tank founded in 2005. He’s also a fellow of the Center for New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think thank than in recent years apparently accepted funding from Exxon Mobil.

[BearSox]

Quick question... is CNN supposed to be an unbiased news channel?

 

 

While the guy in the following video did go overboard with the Obama-Hitler picture and most importantly didn't have any points to backup his stance, I love how you can see a sign in the background that says "Republicans suck too!" I thought these were all right wing GOP nut jobs??? Weird, huh?

 

 

See, the difference between her and people like Beck, Hannity, etc. is that she claims to be a journalist while the others are commentators.

[mr_genius]

she's a fraud of a journalist, no doubt. CNN has been a Democrat party mouth peice for a long time.

[Rex Kickass]

she's a fraud of a journalist, no doubt. CNN has been a Democrat party mouth peice for a long time.

 

Or she might have had a s***ty day with an assignment she didn't want and people insulting her very presence - I wouldn't go so far as saying that she's a fraud. Given that so many of these teabag affairs were actually hosted by Fox personalities, I'd be willing to wager that she encountered a pretty hostile crowd - not that this is any excuse.

 

Still pretty unprofessional, and if I was her boss, I'd suspend her for what she said - at least. Just not right.

[BearSox]

Or she might have had a s***ty day with an assignment she didn't want and people insulting her very presence - I wouldn't go so far as saying that she's a fraud. Given that so many of these teabag affairs were actually hosted by Fox personalities, I'd be willing to wager that she encountered a pretty hostile crowd - not that this is any excuse.

 

Still pretty unprofessional, and if I was her boss, I'd suspend her for what she said - at least. Just not right.

Well, maybe she wouldn't have gotten insulted so much if she didn't go around asking people their opinion and then insult them by calling them practically stupid because they have different views than her.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, maybe she wouldn't have gotten insulted so much if she didn't go around asking people their opinion and then insult them by calling them practically stupid because they have different views than her.

Two minutes on YouTube doesn't describe her whole day. Again, I'm not excusing her actions. They were unprofessional at best - but I wouldn't go so far as to call her a fraud of a journalist. It's no different than asides and comments I have a tendency to have heard from other anchors and reporters on other networks (from both sides of the aisle).

[southsider2k5]

This from the man known as the ATM of the DNC.

 

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=915030&SMap=1

 

Rattner involved in probe on finder's fee: Reports

4/17/2009 1:54 AM ET

 

GM Reportedly Considers Selling Pontiac, GMC brands

(RTTNews) - Steven Rattner, head of the Obama Administration's auto task force, was one of the investment-firm executives involved with payments under the scanner in an investigation into an alleged kickback scheme at New York state's pension fund, reports said.

 

A Securities and Exchange Commission complaint says that in 2004, a "senior executive" of Rattner's investment firm met with a politically connected consultant about a finder's fee and the firm received an investment from the state pension fund and paid $1.1 million in fees. The "senior executive," not named in the complaint, is Rattner, who is co-founder of the investment firm, Quadrangle Group, the reports added.

 

Rattner left Quadrangle earlier in the year to join the Treasury Department. Neither Rattner nor Quadrangle has been accused of any wrongdoing. A spokesman for the Treasury is reported to have said that during the transition, Rattner made the department aware of the pending investigation.

The SEC's complaint says a meeting was arranged between the senior Quadrangle executive and a brother of New York's then-deputy comptroller to discuss acquiring the DVD distribution rights to the low-budget film, "Chooch." The movie was produced by the deputy comptroller, now under indictment, and his brothers.

 

Quadrangle, through an affiliate called GT Brands, agreed to acquire the film's rights for $88,841, and shortly after that the deputy comptroller told the senior Quadrangle executive that Quadrangle would get a $100 million investment from the pension fund, the complaint adds. Later, Quadrangle reportedly paid the $1.1 million finder's fee to a company affiliated with the political consultant.

[Cknolls]

So the Messiah gives a speech at Georgetown, references the Sermon on The Mount, but asks school officials to cover up the IHS, referencing Jesus Christ, that was behind him....WTF?....

[lostfan]

So the Messiah gives a speech at Georgetown, references the Sermon on The Mount, but asks school officials to cover up the IHS, referencing Jesus Christ, that was behind him....WTF?....

He is Jesus.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

He is Jesus.

 

 

Shhhh