U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Felya]

This is another debate anyway. We weren't talking about that, but rather the actual cost that translates into energy prices.

I am saying, the benefits only look as good as they do, when you exclude long term damage from energy prices. The only way your argument works, is if we focus on the short term 'actual cost that translates into energy prices' and ignore the long lasting environmental damage. We should count the long lasting damage as part of actual energy cost, it's disingenuous to pretend that it's a different debate.

---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 06:06 PM ----------

Carrying a big stick only works if the targets fear the consequences. With the Tea Partiers they don't care if the country crashes and burns. They might even want that since it could mean building from the ground up with a new social order...one more of their own liking. Just look at the Debt Ceiling fight. They were all gung ho to let the default happen and the disastrous consequences for the USA and the world.

That's actually a fantastic example. Obama should have made a bigger deal out of it. He was way too passive and it cost democrats the mid term elections. He had republicans indirectly demanding to cut all payments to social security and Medicare through this debt ceiling debate. Yet, he never even came close to going for throat, instead giving formulaic white house lawn speaches. After all that, republican hail a 6 month limit as big win. What happens 6 month later? Absolutely nothing. No republicans demanding we halt the debt ceiling and no Obama pointing out how they were willing to tank our economy, to win midterm elections. He doesn't stand up for what is right, preferring to massage it into submission. It took a Biden mouth fart, to get Obama's and democrat's as a whole, feet set behind gay marriage.

By the way, Biden does not get the praise he deserves from LGBT community for that mouth fart. I doubt gay marriage would be an actual DNC platform, if it were not for Joe.

[ptwonline]

I am saying, the benefits only look as good as they do, when you exclude long term damage from energy prices. The only way your argument works, is if we focus on the short term 'actual cost that translates into energy prices' and ignore the long lasting environmental damage. We should count the long lasting damage as part of actual energy cost, it's disingenuous to pretend that it's a different debate.

And anyway I think we all do agree that coal isn't good, but it's a necessity for the near future. My beef is not that coal is needed, but that Romney is out stumping to have regulations reduced on it. he's doing it because the coal industry gives his campaign a lot of money, and they expect to be repaid. The regulations are in place to reduce the number of people that it kills and reduce the amount of damage it causes to the environment. Even if we recognize the need to keep using coal, there really isn't any defensible excuse for that.

Even the argument of protecting jobs isn't a good one. The jobs are terrible--they don't pay well, it's difficult and dangerous, and there are common and serious health issues that the workers face. We should be trying to find ways to get people OUT of those jobs, not protecting those jobs. I'm sure most coal workers would rather be retrofitting a building or a home to make it more energy efficient than working in a coal mine or the prospect of their sons having to work in coal mines.

[Felya]

And anyway I think we all do agree that coal isn't good, but it's a necessity for the near future. My beef is not that coal is needed, but that Romney is out stumping to have regulations reduced on it. he's doing it because the coal industry gives his campaign a lot of money, and they expect to be repaid. The regulations are in place to reduce the number of people that it kills and reduce the amount of damage it causes to the environment. Even if we recognize the need to keep using coal, there really isn't any defensible excuse for that.

Even the argument of protecting jobs isn't a good one. The jobs are terrible--they don't pay well, it's difficult and dangerous, and there are common and serious health issues that the workers face. We should be trying to find ways to get people OUT of those jobs, not protecting those jobs. I'm sure most coal workers would rather be retrofitting a building or a home to make it more energy efficient than working in a coal mine or the prospect of their sons having to work in coal mines.

I don't think it's necessary, as the investment gets wasted if the plan is only short term. Instead of doubling down on coal, we should go completely towards clean, reusable energy. We shouldn't have to step back to move forward. Put that on an Obama t-shirt...

I obviously agree with everything else.

[Deleted]

I don't think it's necessary, as the investment gets wasted if the plan is only short term. Instead of doubling down on coal, we should go completely towards clean, reusable energy. We shouldn't have to step back to move forward. Put that on an Obama t-shirt...

I obviously agree with everything else.

There can be a gain in a shorter term investment in coal. It completely depends on the benefits of the cheap energy and the environmental costs. I'm personally not too alarmed by CO2 increases, but the other pollution is certainly of concern. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the cost-benefit ratios between environmental damage and cheap energy.

[Sunseeker]

My continued point was that part of coal's low price(which I don't disagree with) is that it's resources are well developed, it's transportation and shipping methods are readily available and require no special precautions, and because of that location is almost irrelevant to construction.

The basic reason coal is cheap is because we use so much of it! Hence why I elaborated to indicate that the prices of alternative technologies are and will continue to decrease as their development, resources and usage increase. I mean it's the basic principle of capitalism: more competition, more production, more supply, more innovation all lead to lower prices and greater benefits for the consumer. We will NOT see alternative energies become more affordable unless we develop them, which has been a solid point you've been missing throughout this entire topic.

Capitalism isn't just about building more mousetraps, it's also about building better mousetraps in order to not just out-sell, but totally blow away your competition. But at some point you need to sink that initial funding into building the better mousetrap before you can sell it.
-On a personal note, this is why I think the "basic essentials" such as water and power should be government-run.

I still disagree that there will be a decrease in the standard of living with reducing our usage of coal.

[The Riddler]

With the Tea Partiers they don't care if the country crashes and burns.

Oh yes they do. That's why the Tea Party exists - to keep the country from crashing and burning under the weight of foolish economic policies such as those espoused by leftists, liberals, and RINOs. The apocalyptic visions of lefitsts of what would happen if the Federal government all of a sudden had to go on a severely needed and LONG overdue diet is just the standard Chicken Little, Boy Who Cried Wolf bologna. The government could reduce its budgets by half and things would still be just fine. GM didn't need a bailout. It could have just gone bankrupt, restructured, and come right back into the game. Same with the banks. You fell for the lie. Oh noes! Unless the government throws a pile of money at the problem then we're all going to die...! Thrb. Thank goodness the Tea Party came along and started forcing the GOP to do more than just flap its gums about fiscal responsibility. You can them them later.

It's neolibs like Obama and others who want to keep throwing good money after bad who don't care if the nation crashes and burns. In fact, OBama's mentors, advisors, and associates who say they want to "fundamentally transform" America. It's they who "never let a good crisis go to waste". It's they who want "bottom up, top down, inside out" revolutions. The main group representing the left is OWS, who want to tear down the system. Not sure where some folks get off thinking that the Tea Party is the one that wants things to crash. They're the ones that want to save the system. It's the left and OWS that want to curbstomp it.

I still disagree that there will be a decrease in the standard of living with reducing our usage of coal.

Until you find a cheap, abundant, economical, and easily transportable replacement then you dang well WILL decrease everyone's standard of living if you start reducing coal before you've replaced it.

[Elegiac]

Oh yes they do. That's why the Tea Party exists - to keep the country from crashing and burning under the weight of foolish economic policies such as those espoused by leftists, liberals, and RINOs. The apocalyptic visions of lefitsts of what would happen if the Federal government all of a sudden had to go on a severely needed and LONG overdue diet is just the standard Chicken Little, Boy Who Cried Wolf bologna. The government could reduce its budgets by half and things would still be just fine. GM didn't need a bailout. It could have just gone bankrupt, restructured, and come right back into the game. Same with the banks. You fell for the lie. Oh noes! Unless the government throws a pile of money at the problem then we're all going to die...! Thrb. Thank goodness the Tea Party came along and started forcing the GOP to do more than just flap its gums about fiscal responsibility. You can them them later.

It's neolibs like Obama and others who want to keep throwing good money after bad who don't care if the nation crashes and burns. In fact, OBama's mentors, advisors, and associates who say they want to "fundamentally transform" America. It's they who "never let a good crisis go to waste". It's they who want "bottom up, top down, inside out" revolutions. The main group representing the left is OWS, who want to tear down the system. Not sure where some folks get off thinking that the Tea Party is the one that wants things to crash. They're the ones that want to save the system. It's the left and OWS that want to curbstomp it.

Despite the fact deficit budgeting resolved three economic crises in the US' history.

Until you find a cheap, abundant, economical, and easily transportable replacement then you dang well WILL decrease everyone's standard of living if you start reducing coal before you've replaced it.

Nuclear....Well, not cheap in the short term. But hey, it reduces power costs on the long term. Look at France.

[belfpala]

Until you find a cheap, abundant, economical, and easily transportable replacement then you dang well WILL decrease everyone's standard of living if you start reducing coal before you've replaced it.

Then we better start replacing it, no?

[Felya]

Then we better start replacing it, no?

It's a catch 22, we do not want to spend the money it takes to get cheaper, cleaner alternative energy infustracture, because coal is so cheap. The coal is so cheap, because the damage it causes is not calculated into the cost, which if it was, cleaner energy would seem cheaper.

[belfpala]

It's a catch 22, we do not want to spend the money it takes to get cheaper, cleaner alternative energy infustracture, because coal is so cheap. The coal is so cheap, because the damage it causes is not calculated into the cost, which if it was, cleaner energy would seem cheaper.

I might have had one too many to drink tonight... but...

Remember Kennedy? I don't, I wasn't alive then. But from what others tell me, he had a vision, and he made people believe. We're going to the moon! And we did.

Remember Solyndra? That's an Obama fail, or so I've heard. But I take it as a US fail. We've given the solar energy industry to China. Who knows what unexpected benefits it might have had...

[Merkava]

Carrying a big stick only works if the targets fear the consequences. With the Tea Partiers they don't care if the country crashes and burns. They might even want that since it could mean building from the ground up with a new social order...one more of their own liking. Just look at the Debt Ceiling fight. They were all gung ho to let the default happen and the disastrous consequences for the USA and the world.

You think they really don't care? I think they just didn't understand. I mean they'd listen to Glenn Beck everyday tell them that socialism is the same as Stalinism. It was an example of what happens when a hugely uninformed group of people coalesce into a political movement who's main goal is just to say no to everything. People like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich to a certian extent, along with others took advantage of it and made a lot of money off of it.

I just think you give them too much credit. I don't think they understood the consequences; I don't think, as a party, they were ever that smart.

[Felya]

I might have had one too many to drink tonight... but...

Remember Kennedy? I don't, I wasn't alive then. But from what others tell me, he had a vision, and he made people believe. We're going to the moon! And we did.

Remember Solyndra? That's an Obama fail, or so I've heard. But I take it as a US fail. We've given the solar energy industry to China. Who knows what unexpected benefits it might have had...

What stings, the one thing I am sure of based on his actions during the time, if Gore won, the Bush tax cuts would have been the foundation of our clean energy infustructure. Right now, we would have invested 10 years into clean energy and even be in position to sell the technology to all the nations that are striving for it.

Can you even imagine what the renewable, clean energy industry we would have, if the funds went there instead of Bush tax cuts? I bet in the 10 years we would have many failures like Solyndra, but the success would have made up for it. Instead of buying from China, we would be selling to China.

We used to aim to be better, but look at the minimum wage thread. We now have people aiming to compete with China on how low we can pay our workers. Can you imagine Reagan, standing tall on the podium and saying "Mr. Garbachev tell us how you built this wall, because gosh darn it seems to keep people in check so well".

[Grizzly Willy]

You think they really don't care? I think they just didn't understand. I mean they'd listen to Glenn Beck everyday tell them that socialism is the same as Stalinism. It was an example of what happens when a hugely uninformed group of people coalesce into a political movement who's main goal is just to say no to everything. People like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich to a certian extent, along with others took advantage of it and made a lot of money off of it.

I just think you give them too much credit. I don't think they understood the consequences; I don't think, as a party, they were ever that smart.

They're the only ones preventing this country from going into a tailspin according to some posters here.

[Felya]

You think they really don't care? I think they just didn't understand. I mean they'd listen to Glenn Beck everyday tell them that socialism is the same as Stalinism. It was an example of what happens when a hugely uninformed group of people coalesce into a political movement who's main goal is just to say no to everything. People like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich to a certian extent, along with others took advantage of it and made a lot of money off of it.

I just think you give them too much credit. I don't think they understood the consequences; I don't think, as a party, they were ever that smart.

If these people were not smart, Gingrich, Palin and Beck would not need to put in so much money and effort to trick them. Tea baggers are misguided, not because they are dumb, but because their guides spend an insane amount of time and money to misguide them.

Just because you think a chick is hot, before you see her without make up, does not mean you have a bad taste in women. It simply means that the ugly girl is successful in her goal of looking like an attractive female. Tea baggers are not dumb, those who profateer off them are just really good at covering up that their ass holes. My guess, a lot of bleach...

[Merkava]

If these people were not smart, Gingrich, Palin and Beck would not need to put in so much money and effort to trick them. Tea baggers are misguided, not because they are dumb, but because their guides spend an insane amount of time and money to misguide them.

Just because you think a chick is hot, before you see her without make up, does not mean you have a bad taste in women. It simply means that the ugly girl is successful in her goal of looking like an attractive female. Tea baggers are not dumb, those who profateer off them are just really good at covering up that their ass holes. My guess, a lot of bleach...

They don't put money into tricking them. They make money selling them what they want to buy. Most of them aren't traditional conservatives who were moved to join the tea party. They're people who previously didn't follow politics and fancied themselves patriots. Gingrich Palin and Beck simply realized that a new niche had been created. That they had a new market to fill and they did. They may be educated, but they're not politically savvy in any sense. Look at their arguments. Pathetic appeals to the founding fathers and analogies to comparing the the government debt to a household budget.

[Wells]

DoJ just arrested 91 people for about 500 million in medicare fraud. Provider side.

HHS is saying that Obamacare anti fraud provisions were a major part of it.

[Merkava]

DoJ just arrested 91 people for about 500 million in medicare fraud. Provider side.

HHS is saying that Obamacare anti fraud provisions were a major part of it.

That's fine, but certainly anti fraud legislation could have been passed separately, right?

[Deleted]

That's fine, but certainly anti fraud legislation could have been passed separately, right?

It's a bit like when you start saying Europe would be better without EU, people bring up the "four freedoms (movement of capital, people, goods and services)". Yeah, the four freedoms are great, but we don't need tens of thousands of people in brussels and tens of thousands of laws to reach an agreement like that.

Anyway, great that they finally uncover some of the fraud that people had long been claiming that existed.

[oblivionx]

They have been nailing people for medicare fraud for a long time, every year.

Giving "obamacare" credit for new arrests is like giving surveillance camera companies credit for criminal arrests.

[Fearandcheer]

Security cameras tend to be critical components in the arrest process, especially if the criminal in question has been getting away with it thus far. Case in point. But god knows, the only thing obamacare should get "credit" for it is jacking up our prices/taxes, right?