(10-23-2009 02:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As to your bill, the best way to describe it is by example:
Bills like this, and really virtually ALL government incentives do things like offering a 30% tax credit for changing your oil furnace to Natural Gas... which means instead of a $5,000 bill, it's $3500... and over the next 5 years, we project that you will save the cost of the furnace. Meanwhile, we place a tax on fuel oil which reduces your payback to 3 years....

This is a perfectly reasonable description of a lot of government programs. The problem for our discussion here is that is a terrible description of cap-and-trade. Sorry. I mean, it's like you just decided what you think is in the bill, put it into the framework of your previous (perfectly valid) experiences with certain programs, and inquired no further.

I originally responded to the challenge to provide an example of a positive Obama policy with this one. It is a controversial one. Your objections (e.g., concern for the plight of the poor under this program) are well founded. So you could say something like:

Hey, Boston, the distribution of allowances to low-income consumers, particularly those that buy power from coal-burning utilities, isn't enough to compensate them for the higher costs they will likely face.

or

Hey, Boston, I think the rebate programs for EITE industries in Waxman-Markey won't be sufficient to prevent job losses among high school-educated workers in these sectors when these sectors come under the cap in 2014.

But that's not where we are. If I want to debate about how beautiful the sun looks this afternoon, but you say it's raining, what can I do?

(10-23-2009 02:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You came into this thread with insults... are you REALLY surprised that you are not getting my respect??

No, not really.

(10-23-2009 02:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It goes on and on...

It does.

(10-23-2009 03:28 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  This is a perfectly reasonable description of a lot of government programs. The problem for our discussion here is that is a terrible description of cap-and-trade. Sorry. I mean, it's like you just decided what you think is in the bill, put it into the framework of your previous (perfectly valid) experiences with certain programs, and inquired no further.

I originally responded to the challenge to provide an example of a positive Obama policy with this one. It is a controversial one. Your objections (e.g., concern for the plight of the poor under this program) are well founded. So you could say something like:

Hey, Boston, the distribution of allowances to low-income consumers, particularly those that buy power from coal-burning utilities, isn't enough to compensate them for the higher costs they will likely face.

or

Hey, Boston, I think the rebate programs for EITE industries in Waxman-Markey won't be sufficient to prevent job losses among high school-educated workers in these sectors when these sectors come under the cap in 2014.

But that's not where we are. If I want to debate about how beautiful the sun looks this afternoon, but you say it's raining, what can I do?

My first response is that I didn't claim to be an expert in cap and trade... YOU did. If my example is wrong, show me how it is substantially different. You are, afterall, the expert. OR, are you really arguing that "it's different this time".

Second, you weren't asked to give an example... you were asked to explain how these were good. Instead, you seem to be asking me to explain how they are bad.

To that point, I never said these bills had no value at all... I only said they only addressed a small part of the issue... interestingly... as far as I'm concerned... the one we have the least control over... Sure, we can clean up US emissions... but we can't do anything about China's emissions... and this is pretty meaningless to oil which is our biggest energy import... and much like oil, air and water are ultimately fungible, too... but at least we can make/find more oil... and because they address the least of our issues first and ignore the important issues... they are bad because they will hurt the economy (according to your statement) and offer a questionable benefit because of the very fungible nature of commodities that you tried to explain to me.

My concerns are not specific to the poor. I only brought that up in that context because people frequently wonder why the very rich and the very poor often support the Democratic party, yet despite decades of "credits" the margin between rich and poor keeps getting wider. Democrats always argue it is the Republicans... who have certainly done their share of it... but Democrats are equally guilty. At least the Republicans don't generally claim to be champions of the poor while screwing them.

FTR, as you have championed Obama here... This isn't what he called for in the campaign. He called for an open auction of all emissions credits while this bill gives 85% of them away. Of course, there won't be any "favoritism" in who gets those credits now would there... not in the open and transparent government that Obama promised... and of course, all members will be able to comprehend this 1200 page document... or I guess, they can simply hire you to tell them what it means...

Rather then treating me like I'm a neo-con (which most of us on here aren't) or stupid (which most of us on here aren't) while you claim to to have this bag of knowledge that we simply wouldn't understand... all the while clamoring for others to join you in a political defense of a candidate (as if he or your party of choice is/are infallible) why don't you try treating me/us as intelligent people with opinions, but open to being convinced... which we (by and large) are. You think this is a great bill...

Simple question... and one every businessman you work for asks you every day...

Why do I need to do this now? When do I pay for it and when do I see the benefits?

Assume for the sake of argument that I am the prototypical family of 4 making (what is the average now?) 50,000... then assume I am one of the growing unemployed... or at risk of losing my job and tell me why I should agree to taxes on necessities at this point in the economic cycle?

Seriously, I AM willing to be convinced.

(10-23-2009 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for anonymity, it is optional and voluntary. Ask George Webb. I know Hambone's name - and you should too, if you followed the sports part of the Parliament. My name is Buddy Lockwood. I am a 1968 graduate of Rice. Lets see some of your writings.

I am listening with interest to this debate.

Buddy Lockwood
AKA OptimisticOwl

Buddy, I disagree, I think anonymity should be mandatory.

(10-23-2009 06:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-23-2009 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for anonymity, it is optional and voluntary. Ask George Webb. I know Hambone's name - and you should too, if you followed the sports part of the Parliament. My name is Buddy Lockwood. I am a 1968 graduate of Rice. Lets see some of your writings.

I am listening with interest to this debate.

Buddy Lockwood
AKA OptimisticOwl

Buddy, I disagree, I think anonymity should be mandatory.

I'm fine with it being optional... and plenty of people unknown to me have proven their knowledge... I know who 69/70 is... as do many, but certainly not all of us... and we know him to be a pretty sharp cookie... but when someone claims to be an expert and belittles others without offering evidence of their superior knowledge... even when challenged... It makes one wonder.

(10-23-2009 06:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-23-2009 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for anonymity, it is optional and voluntary. Ask George Webb. I know Hambone's name - and you should too, if you followed the sports part of the Parliament. My name is Buddy Lockwood. I am a 1968 graduate of Rice. Lets see some of your writings.

I am listening with interest to this debate.

Buddy Lockwood
AKA OptimisticOwl

Buddy, I disagree, I think anonymity should be mandatory.

LOL, Rick. Or is that your real name?

I must confess, Buddy is not my real name. It is just what my friends and some enemies call me.


Whatever my name is, I am still interested in seeing some of his writings. Shoot, maybe I will let him see my Nobel Peace Prize. Or not.

(10-23-2009 06:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-23-2009 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for anonymity, it is optional and voluntary.

Buddy Lockwood
AKA OptimisticOwl

Buddy, I disagree, I think anonymity should be mandatory.

Who said that?

As for the virtue (or not) of anonymity: I tend to think that my posts come out just a little bit better because I know my name is on them. [Some of you might think that that's a pretty scary thought -- and I won't dispute you!] But that's not really why I do it. For me, not being anonymous just makes the forum more fun. That probably reflects a certain egotism, but hopefully not an unhealthy degree of it. [And again, I won't really dispute those who think otherwise]

One thing I said in the sports forum is that a dude who claims to be some well-placed insider but who posts anonymously is quite lame. It's not just lame, it seems rather slimy: if by virtue of his insider position he's not supposed to be disclosing certain information, then it seems he shouldn't disclose it period, regardless of whether he uses pseudonym. I'm not quite sure that's true as a universal rule (e.g. in a thread about health care, I can certainly see the value in someone saying "well, at my company, we do the following...." without needing to reveal which company). But I'm pretty sure it's true regarding the particular dude in question.

yeah but what you guys don't admit is that Rick is REALLY George, and George is REALLY Rick.

Doc is of course, Doc

and RU is the Walrus

(10-23-2009 07:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  yeah but what you guys don't admit is that Rick is REALLY George, and George is REALLY Rick.

Doc is of course, Doc

and RU is the Walrus

No Sneezy, Happy, or Grumpy however.

(10-23-2009 09:35 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(10-23-2009 07:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  yeah but what you guys don't admit is that Rick is REALLY George, and George is REALLY Rick.

Doc is of course, Doc

and RU is the Walrus

No Sneezy, Happy, or Grumpy however.

Or Itchy, or Loopy, or any of those other reindeer.

(08-27-2009 09:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-27-2009 06:26 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Let's call the super regions the Pacific, Atlantic Coast, East, Southeast, Big Lakes and Big Plains regions.

You've got me curious, so I have to ask: "Big" but not "Great"?
Perhaps we could add a region for the desert southwest and called it the Large Canyon region.

The BCS for healthcare...

Can't believe I missed it the first time

(08-28-2009 08:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We should establish some level of basic healthcare for everyone. There are already some pretty reasonable HMO type health-care coverages you can buy for around $500/month/Family. No, not a perfect plan... but something that covered an awful lot of what most people need. People could make some choices between more coverage and a higher co-pay or deductible, or less coverage and lower out-of pocket costs. It could be funded by what we currently pay for Medicare/Medicaid... PLUS rather than force employers to offer and administer a healthcare plan... we could simply 'tax" them an equivalent amount for this basic plan. Employers at the larger companies, or those who have competitive fields where benefits are an important part of the equation could then offer ad-on insurance policies with the companies or the individuals paying only the difference between the basic and the "golden" plan.

This is the French/German/Swiss approach. I am personally more familiar with the French plan (my mom chose to break her hip in Paris rather than Berlin or Geneva) but my understanding is that the basic difference among the three is that a consortium of insurance companies administer the "free" system (basic coverage) in France, whereas that is done by a government agency in Switzerland and Germany. I could well be wrong on the Swiss/German part of this, so someone more knowledgeable feel free to correct me on that.

I don't know about costs in Switzerland and Germany. I know that the French government spends less per capita to provide universal coverage than the US government spends per capita not to provide universal coverage. That strikes me as astounding. And for the argument that the US is a lot bigger than France, those are per capita numbers so I cannot imagine how that could be a factor.

90+% of the French have supplemental private insurance. Note that's a higher rate than here, even though they have the "free" safety net and we don't. Primarily, that's because probably 89% of French employers provide it as a benefit, since if you get sick or injured they want you well and back on the job instead of stuck in a queue in the "free" system. The insurance is relatively cheap, because you're still getting the basic stuff like tetanus shots and amoxycillin prescriptions in the "free" system.

France is having some issues right now. They have intentionally structured their "free" system to be like a bad HMO. There are those who want to turn it into a good HMO. That will of course cost more, although probably still not nearly as much as Obamacare. So far, the status quo is holding. They're debating costs, just like we are, but their debates are occurring at a much cheaper threshhold level. I'd gladly swap our problems for theirs.

Bottom line, France has universal coverage (actually 99.9%), their government spends less to provide it than ours does not to provide it, and more Frenchmen have private insurance than Americans. Why are we even thinking about anything else?

OK, this thread has had so many twists and turns, it can probably survive another.

This is my understanding:
Obama won't stand in the way of the AG prosecuting CIA people because he says the AG needs to enforce the laws. Not the job of the President to interfere and tell the AG which laws to enforce.
BUT he tells the AG not to enforce the laws regarding marijuana in those states with legal medical marijauna.

What is the difference here? Is there a real difference or is it just more liberal hypocrisy?

Would like to hear from Obama fans as well as nonfans.

(03-10-2009 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  ...that any of the administration's economic initiatives are actually going to work?

I realize that for some proponents, actual success doesn't matter -- or more accurately, success is DEFINED as the mere fact of confiscating, allocating, and regulating, so that the "success" of such a policy is automatic. Such a policy is also brilliantly unfalsifiable -- it can never fail, and if it is ever accused of not accomplishing more meaningful results, the inevitable rejoinder is that more of the same is needed, because obviously there wasn't enough the first time. Certain interest groups have built their existence on this very theory.

But for most of us, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.* Does anyone -- in Washington, on Wall Street, in California, anywhere -- have a sincere belief that any of the stimulus/spending/tax/regulation efforts will actually produce growth and prosperity?
...

Year-and-a-half later, just checking....

(10-23-2009 12:07 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  No socialist am I. I like my money very, very much.

Most socialists do. In fact, they like it so much that they get jealous when other people have it.

(09-29-2010 04:27 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-23-2009 12:07 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  No socialist am I. I like my money very, very much.

Most socialists do. In fact, they like it so much that they get jealous when other people have it.

I like the quote: "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money"

(09-29-2010 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-10-2009 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  ...that any of the administration's economic initiatives are actually going to work?

Year-and-a-half later, just checking....

TARP and the stimulus prevented another depression. This is old news. Is that not good enough for you?

(09-30-2010 10:35 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(09-29-2010 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-10-2009 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  ...that any of the administration's economic initiatives are actually going to work?

Year-and-a-half later, just checking....

TARP and the stimulus prevented another [depression] recovery.

Fixed it for you.
Unless by "recovery" you mean "growth in public-sector employment." In which case, I guess administration has fashioned an impressive "recovery".

(09-30-2010 11:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  TARP and the stimulus prevented another [depression] recovery.

Fixed it for you.
Unless by "recovery" you mean "growth in public-sector employment." In which case, I guess administration has fashioned an impressive "recovery".

Heh. Sorry, but you are wrong. Good try though. Socialism! Hitler!

(09-30-2010 10:35 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(09-29-2010 04:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-10-2009 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  ...that any of the administration's economic initiatives are actually going to work?

Year-and-a-half later, just checking....

TARP and the stimulus prevented another depression. This is old news. Is that not good enough for you?

Perhaps you should actually look up the dates of TARP first. Might suprise you. While assuming in arguendo that Obama can part the waters, I really don't think that he has the power to reverse time (I mean, everyone knows that *only* Superman flying really fast and Captain Janeway can do that..... jeez.....)

When you do, you will be left with the statement that "The stimulus prevented another depression"..... do you *really* want to make that assertion?

George: with all due respect, TARP probably kept the financial system from imploding. While not a huge supporter of it, the alternative to it would have been a massive freeze in the financials. I find it interesting that Obamaites are now trying to claim it as their own.

The stimulus was done in a manner that to a Chicago schooler would cringe and a Keynesian would orgasm over. The stimulus probably did have an overall positive effect on the economy and some form of stimulus was probably a good idea. I would have preferred more of a supply side answer instead of the massive grab bag of public pork crap that came out of it; but regardless of how you do it, both the supply side stimulus (in the form of tax holidays and relief) and the Keynesian "govt knows best" approach that we got would have led to the same deficit issues -- albeit from differing sides of the balance sheet.

Verdict for me: worst case would be no stimulus; best case a tax holiday stimulus. So while I am glad there was some stimulus package and would agree both that it was needed and was helpful, I disagree that it was implemented in a manner to be the most effective at the pockets of the people. While the stimulus as passed made the builders of the John Murtha airport, the owners of Fisker automobile, and various researchers of the sex drives of wombats very happy, in my view the power of a recovery is pushed by the whole integral of the financial attitude of the population at large. To that effect, the stimulus failed.

To the points of Boston, claiming that the TARP was a great Obama program is utterly false.

Claiming that the stimulus kept us from a depression is, at best, highly debatable, and at the least, while colorful and forceful, simply doesn't have a huge amount of backing behind it (kind of like those "lose 50 lbs in 4 weeks" commercials that air in the wee hours....)

(09-30-2010 12:36 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  Heh. Sorry, but you are wrong. Good try though. Socialism! Hitler!

Pretty lame, especially for yourself.