Jump to content

The Democratic Field

Recommended Posts

Obama capitulating once again to the Idiocracy is one of the reasons his job approval ratings keep declining. Obama has joined the race to the bottom instead of standing firm. That Americans are standing by and letting those that believe if China doesn't care about ground level pollution then we don't need to is a disgrace. As far as I'm concerned, clean air is far more important than whether business can keep another fraction of a penny on the dollar - and the billions that would have been "lost" to some businesses would have been gained by other businesses, with a bonus of saving billions in health care costs.


Protectionism has been the American way of doing business since the beginning. Where do people think the government got its revenues from prior to the imposition of the income tax? Tariffs - protectionist tariffs on imported goods and meterials. Protectionism started to decline in 1947 with the creation of GATT and the final nail was driven home with the creation of the WTO in 1995. Protectionism is what helped create "American Exceptionalism". It's the loss of Protectionism that is doing the most harm to exceptionalism, if you believe in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yah, like I said back before da election, Obama is just a moderate Republican. Even a bit right of that sometimes. He could have run with Gerald Ford back in the day, and I reckon he'd be right of Eisenhower. Both of them had a bit more backbone, though.


I'm with Calico. I think businesses have to pay the real cost of manufacturing, and not rely on a public bailout when their business process pollutes the air, water, or ground for others. I know lots more scouts with asthma-related disorders in da cities than there ever were when I was younger, and the cost to them and their families just in medications is significant. Not to mention it hurts their access to scouting and other fun activities sometimes.


More to the point, though, other businesses and taxpayers have to pay the cost of those medications through their health programs, so all this kind of bailout does is harm the business economy overall. It costs jobs in the long run.


Being conservative means being anti-pollution, protecting the responsible business environment, and ensurin' our scouts and grandkids grow up healthy with clean air and water. Not public bailouts for polluters.




Link to post
Share on other sites

There is pollution and then there is CO2. It is fine to require scrubbers to eliminate the sulfates and nitrates from the smoke (leading contributors to acid rain), but this whole CO2 issue is a multi-billion dollar infusion into the coffers of universities, government offices, and environmentalists. This is the basis for the whole "Manmade Global Warming" scare. Let's not confuse the two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we're beginning to mix threads here but I can't figure why China would import coal when they have large coal deposits of their own. Granted it's pretty dirty coal but then maybe that's why the Chinese are investing heavily into wind turbine production and solar cell production, which by the way is the major reason the domestic solar cell manufacturer's have gone belly up. It may have been a bad investment in the US, but the Chinese seem to think it's a good investment.


At the rate we're going we'll be the ones riding bicycles in the smog with surgical masks.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent; do not know how old you are, but I can assure you that air pollution is very real. I watched smog and other pollutants get worse and worse for years, and they are still far above levels of when I was a kid. Environmental laws work, and are responsible for the improvements over the past 20 years; but there is a long way to go. Proof of the problem is the huge growth in lung related problems with the younger generations as compared to adults who did not grow up with the same levels during critical developing years.


When I was in high school in the desert you could see the ridges along the Colorado River from our house, over a hundred miles away. Now, much of the time, there is so much air material that you are lucky to see half that distance, even on the best days. One of the things that led to forests in Southern California becoming infested with insects was their being weakened by smog. When I worked for the FS in 1969-71 in the San Bernardino NF, you could mark the level of smog by the health of the trees; there was a distinct difference in the foliage above 5,000 feet.


But regulation does not harm the industry in the long term, other than cutting into their profits and the pay of the upper tier management. Short term profit at the expense of the future generations' health is just as bad as perpetuating the debt onto our grandkids, maybe even worse.


A spectacular example of what a relatively simple regulation can do was demonstrated in England, specifically London. When they banned the burning of coal without air filters and use of the poorest grades of coal altogether, they eliminated the infamous black fogs of London. It was caused by coal dust suspended in the air that collected moisture, causing the dense fog, and all kinds of lung issues. No one there would want to go back to that type of thing; and we should want to eliminate pollutants today for the same reasons.


Just think, Boyce might not have gotten lost had they already banned the coal burning.(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Link to post
Share on other sites

skeptic - I live in Atlanta, I know about pollution. I do wonder about how clean the air really needs to be. Are you willing to get rid of your car so the air will be 1/1,000,000,000 cleaner?


As for kids with more lung issues - is the cause really air pollution? I'm 48 and I often have discussions with my peers about how many kids now have peanut allergies. None of us can remember anyone having them when we were kids. Did the infants with peanut allergies just not survive 50 years ago? Is the same true for infants that had lungs issues 50 years ago vs. those of today? Or could it be one of a million other variable? Women having children when they are older (over 40)? Kids being born out of wedlock and not receiving proper prenatal care? My wife has asthma and she blames it on her mother, who smoked during preganancy.


I am all for clean air and water. I would just like to see regulations based on science that is confirmed by scientist on both sides of the political aisle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is definitely due to pollution I feel, as well as to over medicating instead of letting natural immunity build up. Someone with better access might find some of the studies done on this, but I remember having read a few of them over the years. The earliest ones were actually more related to the effects of mustard gas in WWI, but the greater levels of breathing issues in large urban areas is documented. I have over 20 years on you, and watched the Southern California area slowly lose its clear skies due to the constant increase in air contamination from vehicles, as well as many factories spewing stuff, like the refineries in El Segundo. It of course is exacerbated by far too many vehicles and over-population. Even with the better combustion forced by newer regulations, and the catalytic devices, the sheer number of trucks and poorly maintained vehicles works against clean air. If we had the same constraints with half the population, we likely would have much less concern.


No, I am not willing to get rid of my car, but I drive one that gets better than average mileage, and I expect the industry to continue to find ways to improve their efficiencies to make up for that one millionth of cleaner air lost to current standards, and to quit looking for ways around, rather ways to improve.


As far as scientists are concerned, they should be apolitical if they are to be true to their research. But, just like economists or statisticians, too many can be bought and paid for by whomever wants a particular viewpoint pushed.


On the other hand, I really do not have issues with extracting more oil on our own, building more refineries, or utilizing other proven energy sources; I just want them to operate as cleanly as possible, and not pollute the environment. Use some of their exorbitant profits to find solutions to emissions, improve cleanup methods when things happen, and put "real" money into research for better technologies. I also wish the overreaching eco nuts would be a bit more realistic too. Some resources are renewable, so there is nothing wrong with carefully using them, but replacing them as we do. On the other hand, we need to not destroy our National Parks at the expense of avarice and ignorance.


The extremists are the biggest enemies we have, unless we stop letting them scare us, demand they have a modicum of civility, insist on compromise when feasible, and start simply using common sense.


Enough; my cynicism is starting to rear.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, science doesn't have politics, but politics uses science. Or ignores it if that's easier. Those of yeh who are ignorin' in da south, keep enjoyin' those droughts. Us northern states with water are startin' to work on our border security. ;)


SeattlePioneer, da references were to da president last week overriding the unanimous EPA recommendation on smog pollutants. Not about coal docks or whatnot.


Yeh did get the logging situation in da NW wrong, though. What actually happened was most of da good, responsible logging companies got hit with hostile takeovers in the 1980s junk bond craze. They had lots of hard assets and good cash flow, so corporate raiders took out high-interest bonds and raided the companies. Then, to pay off the bonds, they went hog wild with vast, non-sustainable clear cutting. That created an artificial boom/bubble in logging jobs, which was inevitably followed by a bust. Da spotted owl thing was a sideshow. What hit the logging industry was plain, old fashioned, corrupt, irresponsible business practice supported by poor financial regulation. Yeh work for a poorly managed company, you're goin' to lose your job.


BA, it doesn't matter what da causes of asthma are, eh? Da pollution hurts those people who have it. As a business, yeh don't get to have other people cover the real costs of your manufacturing, which includes the kids who are made miserable and the families who have to pay for medications and ER visits from your pollution. And yeh have to remember, for most stuff a part per billion in da air becomes a part per million in the water becomes a part per ten thousand in da fish served on your table becomes a part per thousand in your child ... Or becomes a fisherman's loss of livelihood.


It's a real, simple conservative principle, eh? Yeh don't get anything for free. Yeh have to pay da full cost for things, not try to foist a big part of da cost on your neighbors or on a public bailout. Yeh price that right, and da market will take care of things without anywhere near as much regulation. But as long as companies can cheat, yeh need regulators/cops.



Link to post
Share on other sites


It sounds like we agree on many on the items we are discussing. The utility companies are regulated already. Any cost increase they have will get passed along to the consumers - us. Cost increases due to regulation will not "cut into their profits and the pay of the upper tier management." They will still make the same profits and upper tier management will still get their big salaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama gets a bum rap. All of this stuff started on George W.s watch and he was a republican. Obama saved the auto industry, but gets no credit for it, and the big banks have repaid all of their bail-out money, but again no credit. Oh yeah, republican sweetheart Dick Cheney keeps talking about how they kept America safe for 7 years. He seems to forget that 9/11 happened on Bush's and his watch. And guess what we are still safe under Obama.


And, Obamas even killed Bin Laden and did a good job with the pirates in Somalia as well. Yes unemployment is stll too high, but that was in the works before he took office. I have not heard a single republican plan to tackle that problem. More big tax cutrs for the richest Americans is not the answer.


Who or what is the alternative to Obama. I really think when you look at the big picture he has done a pretty good job on the policy front but not such a good job on the PR front. He should shout about his successes a lot more.


Let's get the republicans back in the white house, things were much better under W.


How soon we forget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Beavah,






So, clear cut logging was corporate conspiracy. I'm not surprised that would be your explanation.



My explanation is that the extremist Endangered Species Act is used by VERY powerful and well financed environmental groups to grab control of public and private lands and resources.


The Spotted Owl was a useful tool used to grab control of much of the forest lands of Washington State and Oregon and put them under the control of environmental groups and values.


Personally, I suspect that many environmentalists were gleeful when those vile wood butchers were put out of work cutting down the Cathedrals Of the Forest ---- part of the state religion of nature worship that prevails these days.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, President George W. Bush tried to get banking reforms to prevent the financial problems that occurred but was blocked by the democrats who, led by Schumer and Frank, had forced the banks into making loans to people who did not have the means to repay. The credit problems is due to the democrats.


Obama didn't save GM, he saved the labor unions. GM could have gone through bankruptcy with similar end results except that it would have had no labor union contracts and thus could have moved to open shop states to be more competitive with import automobiles. Instead, the taxpayers have been saddled with the debt in order to protect the unions.


Obama made a courageous decision in going after bin Laden. However, he and his staff then had to brag about what they knew instead of keeping the details of the mission secure. This may have cost the lives of nearly 30 special forces in an attack on a helicopter caring members of SEAL team 6.


The economy is in shambles, unemployment is intolerably high, and Obama has got us involved in a third war where he is engaging in nation building (sounds like a criticism leveled at President Bush).


Obama campaigned on getting rid of the patriot act but signed an extension into law. He did pass a healthcare bill that was opposed by 60% of the American people - not a very democratic thing to do.


Fast and Furious is a scandal that should send many to prison.


The Justice department has reversed 50 years of enforcing the civil rights laws fairly across the board and decided to be prejudicial.


It seems to me that this extremist president is a failure and has received very kind reporting considering the terrible job that he has done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...