CSNbbs

(01-20-2017 05:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The federal nature of our republic gives us the possibility of providing a guaranteed income and transferring the other welfare programs to the states, who could pick and choose which to keep.

But one side likes the idea of 50 different laboratories, while the other strangely persists in trying to consistently crater the idea and ideals embodied by the 10th amendment.

Interestingly the anti-side consistently conflates the verbalization of support of the 10th amendment with "racists".... and directly equates the paraphrase of that (states rights) with "racists". Funny how that happens......

(01-20-2017 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Walking a mile in the other guys shoes...

My name is Joe Black. I am 50 years old, a high school graduate, class of 1985. I am a miner for the Dirty Coal Company in Littleton, WV. My wife is a homemaker. I have two daughters, Kelly, 25, married to a guy who is also a miner at DCC, with two kids, 6 and 3, and Allison, a junior At Marshall studying to be a teacher. I am a union member and a lifelong Democrat.

One day on TV, I hear Hillary Clinton promise to put coal miners out of work. Damn, I think, what if that's me and/or my son-in-law? what do we do then? But then the next day, she adds, that of course we will get those miners retrained.

I think, I guess that means if I lose my job, they will give me six months of federal assistance and food stamps while we learn to operate some sort of machine. Then, I'll probably have to move to Wheeling or some other big town, and compete with my son-in-law and 100 other ex-miners for a half dozen jobs that pay less than I make now. Allison may have to drop out of school, and Kelly and my wife may have to find waitress jobs.

I think I'll just vote for the other guy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Me talking now.

Now we have had lots of jobs evolve out of the economy before. Buggy whip makers and livery stable workers, for example. But they were gradual and related to market forces. There was never a candidate swearing to put buggy whip makers and livery stable workers out of work to help the car industry, and offering to retrain them for something.

Bottom line here, people want what they have NOW, not pie in the sky.

I don't think a lot of people don't understand the appeal of what trump is saying (or the damage Hillary did with that quote). I think the difference is that many people don't but into the idea that you can bring those jobs back, that they are a lost cause due to forces bigger than even the US gov't (hello invisible hand). So those people say well, let's find something else, find some other way to let those people earn a good living doing something else since they can no longer earn a good living doing what they did.

To me, that is much more realistic, forward thinking, and a better plan, than doubling down on a dying gig like the buggy whip makers. But I understand the appeal of the language.

Coal mining jobs are headed the way of livery stable jobs, and at about the same pace.

Still need a definition of " universal basic income type idea of retraining", not for argument, but to understand.

It was a typo - OR not OF

Basic income is the idea that, in simplest terms, everyone is provided X dollars, regardless of income. Retraining would be a focus on providing access to training programs/apprenticeships for those who previously worked in say, coal mining.

From Wiki:

Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

Conservatives have been calling for a flat tax for a long time, but one at a level as high as our top current level?

(01-20-2017 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 05:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The federal nature of our republic gives us the possibility of providing a guaranteed income and transferring the other welfare programs to the states, who could pick and choose which to keep.

But one side likes the idea of 50 different laboratories, while the other strangely persists in trying to consistently crater the idea and ideals embodied by the 10th amendment.

Interestingly the anti-side consistently conflates the verbalization of support of the 10th amendment with "racists".... and directly equates the paraphrase of that (states rights) with "racists". Funny how that happens......

You're right that generally liberals prefer a more federal approach to certain laws, and vice versa for Republicans. But let's continue down this divisive partisan path you're starting.

Right wingers say they're all for local control, until that local control goes against their interests. Just look at the high profile steps both North Carolina and Texas have taken to curb the rules that individual cities want to put in place. After Denton voted to ban fracking in their city limits, the state legislature, controlled by right wingers, decided to override a communities ability to govern themselves as they see fit. And in North Carolina, the right wing bathroom bill that has stripped jobs and revenue from the state was only done because rightwingers couldn't help but try to override another local bill that didn't fit with their view of how people should legislate their naughty bits.

I really wish that this forum would be more about discussion of ideas and the merits of them, or about current events in politics, than petty and divisive arguments that paint the "others" we disagree with, with a very large brush. Responses like yours and mine are the problem.

And by the way, the reason states' rights often gets conflated with racism (too frequently nowadays) is because of history. You do realize that states' rights was the leading argument behind Jim Crow laws remaining legal, right?

(01-21-2017 12:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]From Wiki:
"Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]"
Conservatives have been calling for a flat tax for a long time, but one at a level as high as our top current level?

Two operative phrases there are "to eliminate poverty" and "all current government spending."

I don't think you can eliminate poverty. Set the payment level with that in mind, and the poverty line would just move up. You get into a tail chase that you can't win. I would set the federal income at a subsistence level, and rely on market forces, individual initiative, Charity, and supplemental state programs to eliminate poverty.

I would look to make significant cuts in other government spending. And I would add a consumption tax and add/increase certain Pigovian taxes to increase revenues.

With those changes that 39% number could be reduced substantially, or possibly be eliminated.

(01-20-2017 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Walking a mile in the other guys shoes...

My name is Joe Black. I am 50 years old, a high school graduate, class of 1985. I am a miner for the Dirty Coal Company in Littleton, WV. My wife is a homemaker. I have two daughters, Kelly, 25, married to a guy who is also a miner at DCC, with two kids, 6 and 3, and Allison, a junior At Marshall studying to be a teacher. I am a union member and a lifelong Democrat.

One day on TV, I hear Hillary Clinton promise to put coal miners out of work. Damn, I think, what if that's me and/or my son-in-law? what do we do then? But then the next day, she adds, that of course we will get those miners retrained.

I think, I guess that means if I lose my job, they will give me six months of federal assistance and food stamps while we learn to operate some sort of machine. Then, I'll probably have to move to Wheeling or some other big town, and compete with my son-in-law and 100 other ex-miners for a half dozen jobs that pay less than I make now. Allison may have to drop out of school, and Kelly and my wife may have to find waitress jobs.

I think I'll just vote for the other guy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Me talking now.

Now we have had lots of jobs evolve out of the economy before. Buggy whip makers and livery stable workers, for example. But they were gradual and related to market forces. There was never a candidate swearing to put buggy whip makers and livery stable workers out of work to help the car industry, and offering to retrain them for something.

Bottom line here, people want what they have NOW, not pie in the sky.

I don't think a lot of people don't understand the appeal of what trump is saying (or the damage Hillary did with that quote). I think the difference is that many people don't but into the idea that you can bring those jobs back, that they are a lost cause due to forces bigger than even the US gov't (hello invisible hand). So those people say well, let's find something else, find some other way to let those people earn a good living doing something else since they can no longer earn a good living doing what they did.

To me, that is much more realistic, forward thinking, and a better plan, than doubling down on a dying gig like the buggy whip makers. But I understand the appeal of the language.

Coal mining jobs are headed the way of livery stable jobs, and at about the same pace.

Still need a definition of " universal basic income type idea of retraining", not for argument, but to understand.

Just read this article and thought about our back and forth. I think it presents some facts that make it more clear why Trump's continued harping on bringing back coal isn't really a good policy: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-19/d...-safer-bet

(01-21-2017 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Walking a mile in the other guys shoes...

My name is Joe Black. I am 50 years old, a high school graduate, class of 1985. I am a miner for the Dirty Coal Company in Littleton, WV. My wife is a homemaker. I have two daughters, Kelly, 25, married to a guy who is also a miner at DCC, with two kids, 6 and 3, and Allison, a junior At Marshall studying to be a teacher. I am a union member and a lifelong Democrat.

One day on TV, I hear Hillary Clinton promise to put coal miners out of work. Damn, I think, what if that's me and/or my son-in-law? what do we do then? But then the next day, she adds, that of course we will get those miners retrained.

I think, I guess that means if I lose my job, they will give me six months of federal assistance and food stamps while we learn to operate some sort of machine. Then, I'll probably have to move to Wheeling or some other big town, and compete with my son-in-law and 100 other ex-miners for a half dozen jobs that pay less than I make now. Allison may have to drop out of school, and Kelly and my wife may have to find waitress jobs.

I think I'll just vote for the other guy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Me talking now.

Now we have had lots of jobs evolve out of the economy before. Buggy whip makers and livery stable workers, for example. But they were gradual and related to market forces. There was never a candidate swearing to put buggy whip makers and livery stable workers out of work to help the car industry, and offering to retrain them for something.

Bottom line here, people want what they have NOW, not pie in the sky.

I don't think a lot of people don't understand the appeal of what trump is saying (or the damage Hillary did with that quote). I think the difference is that many people don't but into the idea that you can bring those jobs back, that they are a lost cause due to forces bigger than even the US gov't (hello invisible hand). So those people say well, let's find something else, find some other way to let those people earn a good living doing something else since they can no longer earn a good living doing what they did.

To me, that is much more realistic, forward thinking, and a better plan, than doubling down on a dying gig like the buggy whip makers. But I understand the appeal of the language.

Coal mining jobs are headed the way of livery stable jobs, and at about the same pace.

Still need a definition of " universal basic income type idea of retraining", not for argument, but to understand.

Just read this article and thought about our back and forth. I think it presents some facts that make it more clear why Trump's continued harping on bringing back coal isn't really a good policy: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-19/d...-safer-bet

I think we are in agreement on the eventual fate of coal.

(01-21-2017 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 05:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The federal nature of our republic gives us the possibility of providing a guaranteed income and transferring the other welfare programs to the states, who could pick and choose which to keep.

But one side likes the idea of 50 different laboratories, while the other strangely persists in trying to consistently crater the idea and ideals embodied by the 10th amendment.

Interestingly the anti-side consistently conflates the verbalization of support of the 10th amendment with "racists".... and directly equates the paraphrase of that (states rights) with "racists". Funny how that happens......

You're right that generally liberals prefer a more federal approach to certain laws, and vice versa for Republicans. But let's continue down this divisive partisan path you're starting.

Right wingers say they're all for local control, until that local control goes against their interests. Just look at the high profile steps both North Carolina and Texas have taken to curb the rules that individual cities want to put in place. After Denton voted to ban fracking in their city limits, the state legislature, controlled by right wingers, decided to override a communities ability to govern themselves as they see fit. And in North Carolina, the right wing bathroom bill that has stripped jobs and revenue from the state was only done because rightwingers couldn't help but try to override another local bill that didn't fit with their view of how people should legislate their naughty bits.

I really wish that this forum would be more about discussion of ideas and the merits of them, or about current events in politics, than petty and divisive arguments that paint the "others" we disagree with, with a very large brush. Responses like yours and mine are the problem.

And by the way, the reason states' rights often gets conflated with racism (too frequently nowadays) is because of history. You do realize that states' rights was the leading argument behind Jim Crow laws remaining legal, right?

Actually you have conflated "local control" with "state's rights". "Local control" is not the source of powers that went into the formulation of the Constitution nor that contemplated for protection of by the 10th amendment.

The entire scope of the Constitution is the definition of both the pre-existing sovereign powers that were melded into the current Federal system, the limits of that power, and the reservation and limitation of that power.

Denton has every right to pass a anti-ban fracking, but the higher sovereign defined has the ability to supercede, much as the Texas Legislature decided to do. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution invokes much of the same pecking order vis a vis the Feds to the states, subject to the limitations of power stated in the Constitution.

Im tired of being labeled a "racist" for actually believing in the limitations of the US Constitution on the powers of the 50 individual sovereigns.

Your construct of the Denton situation has no bearing on the issue whatsoever, as there is no limitation in the Texas Constitution for the Texas Legislature to do what they did.

As for slavery, for the original states that entered slavery (I hate to tell you) *was* a matter of an individual sovereign's power to decide. There was no limitation on the power of an individual state entering into the grand agreement on whether of not to have this system in place -- as for entering states, the sovereign that parceled out and created the incoming state sovereignty (the US Federal Sovereign) deigned whether the state had a choice or not. Most that had the choice opted to implement the system under the parceled out power, as those that were decided to be non-slave *did not* have that option under their creation.

So yes, slavery was a state's rights creation. To label someone in the present day as a racist using the term is utterly stupid, and shows a reverse ignoramce as bad as they wish to portray (imo).

Most conservatives believe in the actual limitation of powers in the Constitution. If Texas or California wish to screw themselves in the arena reserved for them (i.e. California being brain dead in their pension system), so be it.

It is almost always the progressive side that wishes to corral state governments with overarching federal decrees. And also the progressive side that has learned to besmirch the move to limit Federal power with the overall "you're racist" screech by conflating the term in that way.

Yes your examples of Texas and North Carolina are examples of a higher sovereign stepping in, but the sovereign powers there dont have the specific limitation on them that the Federal intervention into state powers ever implicates. A valiant attempt, but the concepts of local control and states rights are vastly different in a legal sense.

As for the Jim Crow, yes the southern states did use that pretext in defiance of the 14th and 15th amendments. To use the term "states rights" to capture that indicia of racism would be much like one terming progressives "communists" or "nazis" (capturing the social agendas of the national socialist nanny state) for their beliefs in progressivism and its nascent roots of philosophy. In that manner it would be used as a perjorative. Thank you for defense of those perjoratives in a somewhat flawed manner.

And interesting that you portray the issue of parceling out and sources of sovereign power as a "divisive partisan issue". The sources of government power, which sovereign can execute using those powers, and the limitations at each sovereign are somewhat key to a functioning federal system. But somehow it is a "divisive partisan issue"..... wouldnt you state that characterization is somewhat telling?

The more I think about it, the more i think the Trump administration will sink or swim on the ability of Donald Trump to make deals with Chuck Schumer. I think Ryan can keep the house in line. But with only a 52-48 majority in the senate, that side is going to require careful navigation. Fortunately for Trump, he and Schumer appear to know each other and to have some past relationships. The art of the deal will be tested. It will be interesting to watch unfold.

(01-21-2017 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2017 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Walking a mile in the other guys shoes...

My name is Joe Black. I am 50 years old, a high school graduate, class of 1985. I am a miner for the Dirty Coal Company in Littleton, WV. My wife is a homemaker. I have two daughters, Kelly, 25, married to a guy who is also a miner at DCC, with two kids, 6 and 3, and Allison, a junior At Marshall studying to be a teacher. I am a union member and a lifelong Democrat.

One day on TV, I hear Hillary Clinton promise to put coal miners out of work. Damn, I think, what if that's me and/or my son-in-law? what do we do then? But then the next day, she adds, that of course we will get those miners retrained.

I think, I guess that means if I lose my job, they will give me six months of federal assistance and food stamps while we learn to operate some sort of machine. Then, I'll probably have to move to Wheeling or some other big town, and compete with my son-in-law and 100 other ex-miners for a half dozen jobs that pay less than I make now. Allison may have to drop out of school, and Kelly and my wife may have to find waitress jobs.

I think I'll just vote for the other guy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Me talking now.

Now we have had lots of jobs evolve out of the economy before. Buggy whip makers and livery stable workers, for example. But they were gradual and related to market forces. There was never a candidate swearing to put buggy whip makers and livery stable workers out of work to help the car industry, and offering to retrain them for something.

Bottom line here, people want what they have NOW, not pie in the sky.

I don't think a lot of people don't understand the appeal of what trump is saying (or the damage Hillary did with that quote). I think the difference is that many people don't but into the idea that you can bring those jobs back, that they are a lost cause due to forces bigger than even the US gov't (hello invisible hand). So those people say well, let's find something else, find some other way to let those people earn a good living doing something else since they can no longer earn a good living doing what they did.

To me, that is much more realistic, forward thinking, and a better plan, than doubling down on a dying gig like the buggy whip makers. But I understand the appeal of the language.

Coal mining jobs are headed the way of livery stable jobs, and at about the same pace.

Still need a definition of " universal basic income type idea of retraining", not for argument, but to understand.

Just read this article and thought about our back and forth. I think it presents some facts that make it more clear why Trump's continued harping on bringing back coal isn't really a good policy: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-19/d...-safer-bet

I think we are in agreement on the eventual fate of coal.

Coal has any number of uses beyond electric generation. Most industrial processes needing high thermals will still require coal combustion. Cement and steel are two that come to mind.

While the demand for coal will drop for electric generation, it combustion properties will still be very strong for the types of processes like those above. The energy density of coal (iirc) far surpasses that of, for example, natural gas.

Coal combustion also produces all sorts of physical residue that is again re-used in other industrial purposes. Would name them, but those details have escaped me at the present.

I dont think I will be such a naysayer as others here for the coal industry.

(01-21-2017 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2017 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 05:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The federal nature of our republic gives us the possibility of providing a guaranteed income and transferring the other welfare programs to the states, who could pick and choose which to keep.

But one side likes the idea of 50 different laboratories, while the other strangely persists in trying to consistently crater the idea and ideals embodied by the 10th amendment.

Interestingly the anti-side consistently conflates the verbalization of support of the 10th amendment with "racists".... and directly equates the paraphrase of that (states rights) with "racists". Funny how that happens......

You're right that generally liberals prefer a more federal approach to certain laws, and vice versa for Republicans. But let's continue down this divisive partisan path you're starting.

Right wingers say they're all for local control, until that local control goes against their interests. Just look at the high profile steps both North Carolina and Texas have taken to curb the rules that individual cities want to put in place. After Denton voted to ban fracking in their city limits, the state legislature, controlled by right wingers, decided to override a communities ability to govern themselves as they see fit. And in North Carolina, the right wing bathroom bill that has stripped jobs and revenue from the state was only done because rightwingers couldn't help but try to override another local bill that didn't fit with their view of how people should legislate their naughty bits.

I really wish that this forum would be more about discussion of ideas and the merits of them, or about current events in politics, than petty and divisive arguments that paint the "others" we disagree with, with a very large brush. Responses like yours and mine are the problem.

And by the way, the reason states' rights often gets conflated with racism (too frequently nowadays) is because of history. You do realize that states' rights was the leading argument behind Jim Crow laws remaining legal, right?

Actually you have conflated "local control" with "state's rights". "Local control" is not the source of powers that went into the formulation of the Constitution nor that contemplated for protection of by the 10th amendment.

The entire scope of the Constitution is the definition of both the pre-existing sovereign powers that were melded into the current Federal system, the limits of that power, and the reservation and limitation of that power.

Denton has every right to pass a anti-ban fracking, but the higher sovereign defined has the ability to supercede, much as the Texas Legislature decided to do. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution invokes much of the same pecking order vis a vis the Feds to the states, subject to the limitations of power stated in the Constitution.

Im tired of being labeled a "racist" for actually believing in the limitations of the US Constitution on the powers of the 50 individual sovereigns.

Your construct of the Denton situation has no bearing on the issue whatsoever, as there is no limitation in the Texas Constitution for the Texas Legislature to do what they did.

As for slavery, for the original states that entered slavery (I hate to tell you) *was* a matter of an individual sovereign's power to decide. There was no limitation on the power of an individual state entering into the grand agreement on whether of not to have this system in place -- as for entering states, the sovereign that parceled out and created the incoming state sovereignty (the US Federal Sovereign) deigned whether the state had a choice or not. Most that had the choice opted to implement the system under the parceled out power, as those that were decided to be non-slave *did not* have that option under their creation.

So yes, slavery was a state's rights creation. To label someone in the present day as a racist using the term is utterly stupid, and shows a reverse ignoramce as bad as they wish to portray (imo).

Most conservatives believe in the actual limitation of powers in the Constitution. If Texas or California wish to screw themselves in the arena reserved for them (i.e. California being brain dead in their pension system), so be it.

It is almost always the progressive side that wishes to corral state governments with overarching federal decrees. And also the progressive side that has learned to besmirch the move to limit Federal power with the overall "you're racist" screech by conflating the term in that way.

Yes your examples of Texas and North Carolina are examples of a higher sovereign stepping in, but the sovereign powers there dont have the specific limitation on them that the Federal intervention into state powers ever implicates. A valiant attempt, but the concepts of local control and states rights are vastly different in a legal sense.

As for the Jim Crow, yes the southern states did use that pretext in defiance of the 14th and 15th amendments. To use the term "states rights" to capture that indicia of racism would be much like one terming progressives "communists" or "nazis" (capturing the social agendas of the national socialist nanny state) for their beliefs in progressivism and its nascent roots of philosophy. In that manner it would be used as a perjorative. Thank you for defense of those perjoratives in a somewhat flawed manner.

And interesting that you portray the issue of parceling out and sources of sovereign power as a "divisive partisan issue". The sources of government power, which sovereign can execute using those powers, and the limitations at each sovereign are somewhat key to a functioning federal system. But somehow it is a "divisive partisan issue"..... wouldnt you state that characterization is somewhat telling?

Yikes, that's a lot to unpack right there. You went on a lot of tangents so I'll only address a few.

Regarding your last comment, I did not state that the parceling out of power was the divisive issue, it was the way in which you stated your opinion and comments, in such a tone and manner as to attack the "other" as opposed to try and discuss the merits of the ideology you adhere and why the other falls flat. In fact, your continued attacks on liberals, progressives, etc. throughout your recent comment by ignoring any nuance in the argument and tackling the worst of the worst on the liberal end exemplifies that. By painting an entire picture of the progressive side as screaming "you're racist" when others try to corral Federal power is a brutish way to discuss the topic. You're doing the exact thing you're complaining about - you're in essence complaining about another side ignoring your point of view and jumping to conclusions while doing just that! I promise, should you say you believe in states' rights while you're supporting, say, California legalizing weed when it is illegal federally, no one will call you a racist.

Second, I did not bring up the issue of slavery, I brought up the issue of Jim Crow laws, which is, IMO, the primary reason why the term "states' rights" is viewed as a dog whistle to many. In fact, going back to slavery, a big issue the South had was that the federal government would not enforce runaway slave laws in the north. So ironically, the South to that extent, was pushing for more federal control, not less. So with that being said, trying to connect racism and states' rights together via slavery (as opposed to Jim Crow) is really only common when someone tries to argue that the Confederate Flag is JUST a symbol dedicated to states' rights, which is ironic due to the nuance of what the South was angry about.

And finally, I'm a bit confused as to your response and how I was defending a pejorative - I thought I was doing the opposite and expressing my opinion that too many assume the term "states' rights" is immediately a way for someone to push a racist/sexist/etc. agenda? Wouldn't defending a pejorative be to state that I think using the term "states' rights" is always code for "I'm a bigot."? There are very valid reasons for pushing states' rights, IMO. Personally though, I believe that generally civil rights issues are best handled by the federal government, and that economic issues are the types of issues best left to the states. For example, I think the ability for states to set they collect taxes is a good idea, because if anything industries vary so greatly state to state. However, I don't think it is a good idea to let certain states decide that all of a sudden :insert minority party here: can't do X, Y, and Z, because those individuals affected may be unable to leave the state to avoid being burdened by the law and we should treat people equally in regards to their personal identification (e.g. race, sex, etc.).

(01-21-2017 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]The more I think about it, the more i think the Trump administration will sink or swim on the ability of Donald Trump to make deals with Chuck Schumer. I think Ryan can keep the house in line. But with only a 52-48 majority in the senate, that side is going to require careful navigation. Fortunately for Trump, he and Schumer appear to know each other and to have some past relationships. The art of the deal will be tested. It will be interesting to watch unfold.

I think Trump would have had better luck before he started attacking Schumer personally by calling him a "clown."

But I agree, especially since a number of Republican Senators do not appear to want to get inline with Trump at the moment on all of his proposals, and don't really feel beholden to him because of his approval ratings. If Trump's approval keeps slipping, I wouldn't be surprised if, depending on the issue, Republican officials start standing up to Trump as a way to distinguish themselves and try and strengthen their chances in the next election.

(01-21-2017 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2017 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2017 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2017 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think a lot of people don't understand the appeal of what trump is saying (or the damage Hillary did with that quote). I think the difference is that many people don't but into the idea that you can bring those jobs back, that they are a lost cause due to forces bigger than even the US gov't (hello invisible hand). So those people say well, let's find something else, find some other way to let those people earn a good living doing something else since they can no longer earn a good living doing what they did.

To me, that is much more realistic, forward thinking, and a better plan, than doubling down on a dying gig like the buggy whip makers. But I understand the appeal of the language.

Coal mining jobs are headed the way of livery stable jobs, and at about the same pace.

Still need a definition of " universal basic income type idea of retraining", not for argument, but to understand.

Just read this article and thought about our back and forth. I think it presents some facts that make it more clear why Trump's continued harping on bringing back coal isn't really a good policy: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-19/d...-safer-bet

I think we are in agreement on the eventual fate of coal.

Coal has any number of uses beyond electric generation. Most industrial processes needing high thermals will still require coal combustion. Cement and steel are two that come to mind.

While the demand for coal will drop for electric generation, it combustion properties will still be very strong for the types of processes like those above. The energy density of coal (iirc) far surpasses that of, for example, natural gas.

Coal combustion also produces all sorts of physical residue that is again re-used in other industrial purposes. Would name them, but those details have escaped me at the present.

I dont think I will be such a naysayer as others here for the coal industry.

Coal will still be mined, that's for sure, as it is not 100% used for electrical generation (like you say). But, as of 2014/2015, about 93% of all coal used in the US each year went to energy production.

http://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/table26.pdf

We are actually in kind of an interregnum period right now. Fracking has provided us with such a glut of natural gas and relatively clean oil that we are sort of isolated for the moment from heavy dependence on the middle east and other major energy issues that have plagued us in the past. But this is kind of a one-time thing. It won't last forever. When it runs low or out, or when it gets regulated out of existence, we will be in a world of hurt unless one of the following has occurred:
1) Renewables have been developed to the point of taking over our energy supply, including propelling autos, trucks, airplanes, trains, and ships, or
2) The Middle East has become peaceful, or
3) We have other sources of domestic energy.

I don't know which of those will happen first. A prudent strategy would be to hedge our bets. If we could make significant progress in clean coal or coal liquefaction/gasification technology, we would create options that could be incredibly useful in future transition periods.

I know the green left says forget everything but green energy. I am totally supportive of developing green energy as rapidly as possible. Cover the southwest desert with photovoltaic panels (other ways of obtaining energy from solar require too much water). Worldwide, do the same for the Sahara. Put a windmill everywhere that the wind blows, including the middle of Ted Kennedy's ocean view. Texas is probably the number one state for renewable energy today, getting as much as a third of its electricity from wind and solar when conditions are right.

But those technologies are not ready to take on the full load today. Germany has installed solar capacity something like 60% of their electric usage, but they get only 4% from solar; Germany has a lot of cloudy days. They won't be for a while, if ever. The best they will probably ever do will still leave some huge gaps. We need all hands on deck until we solve this problem.

Quote: Cover the southwest desert with photovoltaic panels (other ways of obtaining energy from solar require too much water). Worldwide, do the same for the Sahara. Put a windmill everywhere that the wind blows, including the middle of Ted Kennedy's ocean view.

I keep returning to the phrase "There is no free lunch".

OK, so we cover Arizona and new mexico with solar panels that catch the sunlight before it reaches the Earth. What does this do to the desert tortoise, the sidewinders, the saguaro, the jaguars, the ...whatever lives there. Either they or their food supply will be affected. Are the environmentalists going to be OK with wiping out species and populations in this way? Likewise the ranchers and farmers who are trying to raise our food supply. No sun, no growth. Likewise, the wind farms have their effect on the environment.

(01-21-2017 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We are actually in kind of an interregnum period right now. Fracking has provided us with such a glut of natural gas and relatively clean oil that we are sort of isolated for the moment from heavy dependence on the middle east and other major energy issues that have plagued us in the past. But this is kind of a one-time thing. It won't last forever. When it runs low or out, or when it gets regulated out of existence, we will be in a world of hurt unless one of the following has occurred:
1) Renewables have been developed to the point of taking over our energy supply, including propelling autos, trucks, airplanes, trains, and ships, or
2) The Middle East has become peaceful, or
3) We have other sources of domestic energy.

I don't know which of those will happen first. A prudent strategy would be to hedge our bets. If we could make significant progress in clean coal or coal liquefaction/gasification technology, we would create options that could be incredibly useful in future transition periods.

I know the green left says forget everything but green energy. I am totally supportive of developing green energy as rapidly as possible. Cover the southwest desert with photovoltaic panels (other ways of obtaining energy from solar require too much water). Worldwide, do the same for the Sahara. Put a windmill everywhere that the wind blows, including the middle of Ted Kennedy's ocean view. Texas is probably the number one state for renewable energy today, getting as much as a third of its electricity from wind and solar when conditions are right.

But those technologies are not ready to take on the full load today. Germany has installed solar capacity something like 60% of their electric usage, but they get only 4% from solar; Germany has a lot of cloudy days. They won't be for a while, if ever. The best they will probably ever do will still leave some huge gaps. We need all hands on deck until we solve this problem.

Problem is that green energies suck at providing base load. The electric industry is predicated on two components -- base load and instantaneous load.

A good analogy in the employment arena is employees v contract staffing. One typically shoots for about 80-90 per cent of staffing as employees (base load) and use the contract side to balance short term load requirements.

Greens can address the short term load problems well.... but offer no relief for base load (except hydroelectric, given that drought conditions dont affect the turbine output) (edited to add coastal wind sources -- almost dependable enough to be counted for base load purposes.) One of the best in theory would be tidal generation, but alas the costs and scales are absolutely massive.

The use of greens (absent viable economic storage capacity) for base load purposes is a pipe dream. (at least until decent storage exists, which really at the present does not, or radically better transmission technologies which could be sued to expand the end reach of the coastal wind farm sources)

(01-21-2017 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Cover the southwest desert with photovoltaic panels (other ways of obtaining energy from solar require too much water). Worldwide, do the same for the Sahara. Put a windmill everywhere that the wind blows, including the middle of Ted Kennedy's ocean view.

I keep returning to the phrase "There is no free lunch".
OK, so we cover Arizona and new mexico with solar panels that catch the sunlight before it reaches the Earth. What does this do to the desert tortoise, the sidewinders, the saguaro, the jaguars, the ...whatever lives there. Either they or their food supply will be affected. Are the environmentalists going to be OK with wiping out species and populations in this way? Likewise the ranchers and farmers who are trying to raise our food supply. No sun, no growth. Likewise, the wind farms have their effect on the environment.

These are reasons why i say that expecting alternatives to provide the full solution is a pipe dream at best. What we need is the most robust portfolio of alternatives possible, then make the choices from those alternatives that best address other concerns.

(01-21-2017 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Problem is that green energies suck at providing base load. The electric industry is predicated on two components -- base load and instantaneous load.
A good analogy in the employment arena is employees v contract staffing. One typically shoots for about 80-90 per cent of staffing as employees (base load) and use the contract side to balance short term load requirements.
Greens can address the short term load problems well.... but offer no relief for base load (except hydroelectric, given that drought conditions don't affect the turbine output) (edited to add coastal wind sources -- almost dependable enough to be counted for base load purposes.) One of the best in theory would be tidal generation, but alas the costs and scales are absolutely massive.
The use of greens (absent viable economic storage capacity) for base load purposes is a pipe dream. (at least until decent storage exists, which really at the present does not, or radically better transmission technologies which could be sued to expand the end reach of the coastal wind farm sources)

The base/peak issue is one of the most poorly understood. It's one reason why I said there will be gaps in what alternatives can do. And alternatives may not be reliable for peaks the occur at night or when it's cloudy or when there's no wind.

(01-21-2017 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We are actually in kind of an interregnum period right now. Fracking has provided us with such a glut of natural gas and relatively clean oil that we are sort of isolated for the moment from heavy dependence on the middle east and other major energy issues that have plagued us in the past. But this is kind of a one-time thing. It won't last forever. When it runs low or out, or when it gets regulated out of existence, we will be in a world of hurt unless one of the following has occurred:
1) Renewables have been developed to the point of taking over our energy supply, including propelling autos, trucks, airplanes, trains, and ships, or
2) The Middle East has become peaceful, or
3) We have other sources of domestic energy.

I don't know which of those will happen first. A prudent strategy would be to hedge our bets. If we could make significant progress in clean coal or coal liquefaction/gasification technology, we would create options that could be incredibly useful in future transition periods.

I know the green left says forget everything but green energy. I am totally supportive of developing green energy as rapidly as possible. Cover the southwest desert with photovoltaic panels (other ways of obtaining energy from solar require too much water). Worldwide, do the same for the Sahara. Put a windmill everywhere that the wind blows, including the middle of Ted Kennedy's ocean view. Texas is probably the number one state for renewable energy today, getting as much as a third of its electricity from wind and solar when conditions are right.

But those technologies are not ready to take on the full load today. Germany has installed solar capacity something like 60% of their electric usage, but they get only 4% from solar; Germany has a lot of cloudy days. They won't be for a while, if ever. The best they will probably ever do will still leave some huge gaps. We need all hands on deck until we solve this problem.

From 2016 it was up to 6% of total consumption (still a drop in the bucket). Renewables make up 30% of total production. Here is an inforgraphic showing the diverse energy production in Germany.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factshee...mix-charts

(01-21-2017 12:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: Cover the southwest desert with photovoltaic panels (other ways of obtaining energy from solar require too much water). Worldwide, do the same for the Sahara. Put a windmill everywhere that the wind blows, including the middle of Ted Kennedy's ocean view.

I keep returning to the phrase "There is no free lunch".

OK, so we cover Arizona and new mexico with solar panels that catch the sunlight before it reaches the Earth. What does this do to the desert tortoise, the sidewinders, the saguaro, the jaguars, the ...whatever lives there. Either they or their food supply will be affected. Are the environmentalists going to be OK with wiping out species and populations in this way? Likewise the ranchers and farmers who are trying to raise our food supply. No sun, no growth. Likewise, the wind farms have their effect on the environment.

There are always negative externalities to any action taken or energy produced. However, just because there are some does not mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. You bring up real concerns with increased capacity in renewables because they generally require a lot of land. When I was at Rice, one of my engineering courses discussed for a bit a lawsuit in Texas by environmentalists to stop a wind farm near the coast due to the impacts it would have on the surrounding habitat. But these are issues that, with forethought and planning, can generally be addressed. And at some point, these problems pail in comparison to those posed by a majority of the fossil fuel alternatives.

I can't tell what you're point is, OO. Is it that just because these renewables can have adverse side-effects that we shouldn't develop them? Or that they aren't this miracle panacea to our energy needs and you feel the need to point that out?

The tactic you're using, whether intentional or unintentional, is what a lot of those who favor fossil fuels over renewables do, which is to point out the speck in the eye of renewables, while fossil fuels have a giant stick in theirs. The speck shouldn't stop us from pushing forward and trying to develop newer and better energy technologies.

As others pointed out, the biggest issue with renewables is the inability at the moment to provide a good base load on a consistent basis.

(01-21-2017 01:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2017 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Problem is that green energies suck at providing base load. The electric industry is predicated on two components -- base load and instantaneous load.
A good analogy in the employment arena is employees v contract staffing. One typically shoots for about 80-90 per cent of staffing as employees (base load) and use the contract side to balance short term load requirements.
Greens can address the short term load problems well.... but offer no relief for base load (except hydroelectric, given that drought conditions don't affect the turbine output) (edited to add coastal wind sources -- almost dependable enough to be counted for base load purposes.) One of the best in theory would be tidal generation, but alas the costs and scales are absolutely massive.
The use of greens (absent viable economic storage capacity) for base load purposes is a pipe dream. (at least until decent storage exists, which really at the present does not, or radically better transmission technologies which could be sued to expand the end reach of the coastal wind farm sources)

The base/peak issue is one of the most poorly understood. It's one reason why I said there will be gaps in what alternatives can do. And alternatives may not be reliable for peaks the occur at night or when it's cloudy or when there's no wind.

"Gaps" is a nice term, but really doesnt address the entirety. It's more than "gaps". They (green technologies overall) are inherently unable to deliver the "base" segment (literally) of the electric load as needed by the system.

It is much like saying the Chihuahua Desert is a "gap" between the East Texas Coastal Plains and Baja California.

Dont get me wrong, they are useful and valuable (as providing the variational load component) ---- but massively ill-suited for a "one size fits all" solution.