The Housing Bubble

So what would happen if the Fed just printed up a billion or so dollars, paid off Treasury debt and issued no new debt to replace it?

So what would happen if the Fed just printed up a billion or so dollars, paid off Treasury debt and issued no new debt to replace it?

The fed’s balance sheet has to balance by definition. How was the printing transaction booked? What account(s) was credited to offset the debit / asset [newly printed money]?

If they book the source ( credit ) as a liability there’s your debt. If they book it to a P&L account then they would be treating it as earnings. If they book it to an Asset … maybe its time for an audit!, an independent, verified one!

I would like to know how much the owner’s of the Fed profit from charging the country interest on its debt. I realize that some gets paid back to the treasury and a guaranteed percentage i retained as profit.

Who gets how much?

“So what would happen if the Fed just printed up a billion or so dollars, paid off Treasury debt and issued no new debt to replace it?”

The Belize central bank can only print Belize money. I’m sure their debt is not denominated in their local currency. Their debt is almost certainly denominated in US Dollars, and they can’t issue dollars. Again, my comment that the problem occurs when the debt is not in the local currency.

“I would like to know how much the owner’s of the Fed profit from charging the country interest on its debt. I realize that some gets paid back to the treasury and a guaranteed percentage i retained as profit.

Who gets how much?”

Oh, that one is simple to answer.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/clbs-federal-reserve-banks-financial-tables-201202.htm

For 2011, the Fed made $66B in interest on its holdings which started the year at $2.5T and ended closer to $3T. It then paid out $3T in interest to banks that had reserves deposited in the Fed, for a net income of $63.6B.

The biggest drain is the actual cost of operating the Fed. Some $3.8B a year, including $3B to pay some 18K employees.

$1.8B loss on the value of the assets it held, and $240M due to under performance of the employee retirement fund.

Net profit of $58B. A $240M adjustment to funded status brings profit up to $58.2B

It then paid out $1.1B in dividends to the member banks (1.9% of net profit).

The reduced its retained earnings to cover future losses by $519M as $1.8B in losses were realized above….

That made for a net return to the treasury of $57.5B.

The “audit of the Fed” is not about how much they earn, spend, or return to the Treasury The “audit the Fed” is all about getting the dirty on which banks are doing liquidity actions (doing repurchase agreements of illiquid assets for liquid cash). I guess Ron Paul, and the other’s calling for the audits want to cause a run on the banks that are having the lost liquidity issues.

(Note: a liquidity issue is not the same as being insolvent.)

Good. We’re glad you’re locked in.

Enjoy the sentence.

Madre was such a recycling Nazi that when friends TP’d our house after a big game, she made us collect it in dozens of brown paper bags and use it in our bathroom for the next year instead of buying new rolls. No use wasting perfectly good used toilet paper….

I wonder if TPing houses has lost its appeal as the TP itself is so much more expensive. Or maybe the kids just take the stuff from home? Their parents must have fits. TP has definitely gone up in price per roll and the rolls are smaller.

Neighbor’s house got TP’d within the past year ago…I guess it still holds some appeal.

“…take America back…”

How far back to the Republicans want to take America?

Back before the time where we borrowed any thing close to forty cents of every dollar we spend.

“Back before the time where we borrowed any thing close to forty cents of every dollar we spend.”

Don’t blame me. I never voted for Raygun. Or Bush. (I.e. the tax-and-spend Conservatives).

They seem to want to take our women back to Leviticus or Deuteronomy LOL!

Don’t blame me. I never voted for Raygun. Or Bush. (I.e. the tax-and-spend Conservatives).

I didn’t either. And, yes, I did hold my nose and vote for Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, and Dukakis in 1988.

Well obewanna / holder has set race relations back at least 20 years…not a word no outrage nothing

VCU and Richmond police described the assailants as a group of 15 black males between the ages of 17 and 22.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/aug/22/group-commits-assault-violent-robbery-vcus-main-ca-ar-2147611/

How far back? How about back to a time before the US of A existed? Back to feudalism! It appears that’s where we are headed. The ultimate ‘good old days’ for the 0.1%.

has set race relations back at least 20 years

How so? By forcing some Americans to acknowledge that they do in fact have a (half) black President?

Back before the time where we borrowed any thing close to forty cents of every dollar we spend.

But Dick Cheney said the deficits don’t matter.

I wonder how much the deficit will grow under Romney/Ryan? Invading and occupying Iran will cost some serious coin.

“I did hold my nose and vote for Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, and Dukakis in 1988.”

With only two choices, some times the best one requires you to hold your nose.

Iran is a much bigger project than Iraq. Just fighting their army in a neutral location (like inside the border of Iraq) would cost serious coin. Invading would take even more, and occupying (successfully) might not even be possible. Hopefully nobody is stupid enough to actually attempt it. Whatever must be taken out should be taken out from over the horizon.

how much the deficit will grow under Romney/Ryan?

And how much of that growth will be due to creating more private sector, for profit, government contractor jobs?

P.S. we are hiring!

“… take America back” - i cringe every time i hear that.. who are they trying to take it back from?

I always tell so-called Patriots that it’s MY America, too. Then when they start yammering on about “strict Constitutionalism” I ask them to name five rights guaranteed by the first amendment.

Usually shuts ‘em right up.

I keep a copy of the Constitution in my backpack. With a copy of my oath of office stapled into the front.

“Hopefully nobody is stupid enough to actually attempt it.”

Wouldn’t that comment have worked well for the prospect of invading Afghanistan a decade ago, or any time over the past millennium, for that matter?

Yeah, except we did actually have a good reason to go there. In that case I think we should have killed OBL at the first opportunity and then left. Not built any permanent facilities. And definitely not still be there now that he’s dead.

It is a little vague, but I think you made a mistake there. Wasn’t it more accurately stimulus money? If you admit your mistake, that would make you a what?

Yer right. It was stimulus money.

Now that we’ve split that hair, the point is still the FACT that lied.

So did you just lie about Ryan asking for bail out money?

So did you just lie about Ryan asking for bail out money?

No, that was Ryan who lied. Turkey just got his words mixed up. There’s an obvious difference.

And as much as our ‘apolitical’ Blue Skye would like to spin it otherwise, Ryan LIED about not taking bailout money. He didn’t make a mistake in his phrasing. He LIED. Like a lying liar will.

You are forgetting the macro accounting identity. As long as we have a trade deficit, either government (taken as a whole) or private people or both must be taking on more debt with the sum of the extra debt equal to the trade imbalance. If the fed wasn’t buying treasuries, someone else would have to be (we’d have to be paying a lot more in interest to make that happen) or private people would have to be going into more debt, or states or someone. Mauldin goes over this all the time.

Just remember, it isn’t about saving the FB’s.

It’s about saving the banksters. All those “cheap houses” many here are anxiously waiting to come on the market represent a loss to the banking cartel.

Agree with CO and also I don’t think you can get reelected with dropping house prices.

“…I don’t think you can get reelected with dropping house prices.”

+1 Self interest above what’s best for the country.

“…I don’t think you can get reelected with dropping house prices.”

..

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans bought more homes in July than in June and prices rose, evidence that the housing market is slowly recovering.

The National Association of Realtors says sales of previously occupied homes rose to 4.47 million in July, a 2.3 percent increase from the previous month. It was the first increase in three months.

But the recovery is slow and uneven. July sales were below the 4.6 million pace reached in April and May. And the annual sales pace is below the roughly 5.5 million that economists consider healthy.

..

Just remember, it isn’t about saving the FB’s.

It’s about saving the banksters. All those “cheap houses” many here are anxiously waiting to come on the market represent a loss to the banking cartel.

This issue is about the banks and the bond market and the big players, not the house-flipping muppets who never really understood why house prices were doing what they were doing, just that they always did it, and always would.

The actual house buyers are muppets. If sacrificing them was the cost of helping the financial sector, they would be sacrificed instantaneously.

The bottom line is - either the muppets are going to pay, or the public in general is going to pay. The muppets promised to pay a lot, but there was always little chance of that, and now the system pretends their promises meant something. A lot of the big boys’ bonuses depends on those promises being kept. So the taxpayer is being bled to keep those promises.

“+1 Self interest above what’s best for the country.”

Hallelujah! I’m a “progressive” voter, but it peeves me when people goof on the Tea Partiers (or whoever) for “voting against their own interest” due to cluelessness. Perhaps they are, but I respect that more, as it’s voting based on a larger philosophy, flawed or not, rather than an “are you better off now that you were four years ago?” type of nonsense.

Should read “THAN you were four years ago”

Perhaps they are, but I respect that more, as it’s voting based on a larger philosophy, flawed or not, rather than an “are you better off now that you were four years ago?”

What is their larger philosophy? “Shrink government and government spending! (But I get to keep my Social Security and Medicare!)”

They may think they’re voting on a larger philosophy, but it’s only because they exempt themselves from its results. If they were ready to give up their own entitlements, then I’d respect them, too. They aren’t.

Are you still a fed?

Yes.

Highly educated people in the federal work force are underpaid, but get to hold on to their ethics. Less educated people in the federal work force are often paid more than their private sector counterparts, but that is largely because they have many more years of service. Given how bad our computer systems are (federal budgeting requirements make big IT projects very hard to fund), loosing the experienced admin people would be a giant mess.

Darn. Losing. That “loosers” meme is getting to me.

That “loosers” meme is getting to me.

That’s funny. Soon none of us will remember for sure how it’s supposed to be spelled.

My favorite reminder,
Losers Spell it Loosers

Loosers spell it losers?

Thank smithers and banana for their taxpayer dollars to pay for private sector, for profit, government contractors to do the work that federal goons won’t do

I shouldn’t be a problem until it is. Apple is a fad company that once completed technology. I say completed because they had no original ideas, they just put other ideas together quite well and marketed them extremely well.

Now there is enough competition in the marketplace that will allow Apple to fade into the background as they did in the 1990’s. It won’t be instant, but if they keep up their attitude of customers will buy whatever we put out, it will happen.

“Now there is enough competition in the marketplace that will allow Apple to fade into the background as they did in the 1990’s. It won’t be instant, but if they keep up their attitude of customers will buy whatever we put out, it will happen.”

Andy hit a home run.

Once upon a time, Apple machines were sold with what was considered superior technology. SCSI, Motorola processors, Firewire. And a rep for better layout/graphic design tools. A premium was understandable.

Now, there is nothing you can do with a premium priced Mac that you can’t do just as well with a homebuilt Windows\Linux system. OS X is nice, and inexpensive. It can be made to run on non-Apple hardware. And open source OS/apps are getting better every day.

iPhones and iPads are nice and some family members want iPods, but when I tell them what they cost….they stick with their Zens and Zunes.

Andy why hasn’t anyone come out with a fully functioning mini pc…that uses 65 watts instead of 250-350+ watts

I know the PC was meant for the hobbyist to upgrade….

Now there is enough competition in the marketplace that will allow Apple to fade into the background as they did in the 1990’s

If they win their patent suits, they’ll be just fine without doing anything new at all. They can just charge everyone else for immitating their designs at a much lower price point.

If you read into the judge’s strong suggestion of working out a deal in the most recent Samsung case, you know that the patent case isn’t holding water.

Judges don’t strongly recommend a deal because the plaintiff is flat out wrong. They recommend a deal when they think there is some merit in the case but they don’t want to have it clogging up their court room for 2 years.

http://www.raspberrypi.org/

Raspberry Pi

OS X is nice

And unlike Winders it’s UNIX based.

Linux can be run on PC’s, but you get a Neanderthal era GUI with it. That won’t fly with most PC users.

Macs will always be “boutique” systems that are pricey. Ditto the iPad, which is an upper middle class toy and status symbol. I don’t travel much, but earlier this year I did, and was astounded by the number of iPads I saw at the airports, in the hands of the well to do.

What will be interesting to watch will be the duke out between Droid and iPhone, which I think is Apple’s most vulnerable position.

The iPod has its market all sewn up. I don’t even know anyone who uses a Zune or a generic MP3 player.

and some family members want iPods, but when I tell them what they cost….they stick with their Zens and Zunes

Huh? You can get a shuffle for as little as $49.

The Zune? It was discontinued last year.

Guess you haven’t used Linux in the past 4 years or so. “Neanderthal era GUI” is completely off the mark.

“If you read into the judge’s strong suggestion of working out a deal in the most recent Samsung case, you know that the patent case isn’t holding water.”

Is that the patent case over Samsung’s tablet looking like a tablet?

Macs will always be “boutique” systems that are pricey. Ditto the iPad, which is an upper middle class toy and status symbol. I don’t travel much, but earlier this year I did, and was astounded by the number of iPads I saw at the airports, in the hands of the well to do.

I know someone like that. Every e-mail I get says that it’s sent from her iPad.

Okay, I get it, sweetie.

You have a high-paying CEO job, so of course you’re rocking an iPad. Does your sigfile need to rub it in?

I agree those sigs are really annoying. The reason you see them is that Apple sets them as the default and most people don’t bother or don’t know how to change it.

There are only 6 million Mormons in the entire USA. To put that into perspective, there are more Catholics in the metro LA area alone.

I thought there were plenty of other religions whose members also tithed? Including Catholics?

Nearly all Christian denominations tell you to give 10%. The Mormans are a bit more strict about it, kind of like the Catholics used to be. They used to post the parish members who didn’t tithe in the bulletin…yikes!

Our catholic church published the weekly donations in the bulletin sorted in descending order.

My family was always near the bottom at $2 / week. Not a bad deal when it included an education and school bussing for 3 children.

I thought there were plenty of other religions whose members also tithed? Including Catholics?

In what universe would that be, LOL!

<i.The Mormans are a bit more strict about it, kind of like the Catholics used to be.

My understanding is that to be in good standing in the LDS, that a 10% tithe is mandatory. There is no such requirement in the RCC

Depends on your definition of “good standing”, but yes.

So are you saying that Mormons are the only ones paying their tithing to the point where they declare it on their taxes? I know that I have heard discussion among people of other religions that implied that they were.

Anyway, whatever percentage of people that ends up being, those people get much more from the MID than someone might think based on their income.

If the 10% tithe is mandatory for membership does that mean its not tax deductible. I used to pay $250 membership to the gardens at wave hill (a botanical garden setup as a charity), but it wasn’t deductible because I got membership out of it.

“…My family was always near the bottom at $2 / week. Not a bad deal when it included an education and school bussing for 3 children….”

How very communist of you! Especially from someone who benefited from the system and derides it so today.

If the 10% tithe is mandatory for membership does that mean its not tax deductible.

It’s not mandatory for membership. It is necessary to participate in temple ceremonies, though.

You are confusing reserve with resource. U.S. has just had around 24 billion barrels of reserves for decades yet we just keep producing that is because the resource is always much greater than the reserve. Increase each of your numbers of one order of magnitude and it would probably be right. Plus you can do coal to liquid plants and convert NG directly to gasoline if you want. We could reach energy independence if we want particularly with an increased contribution from alternative energy and new nuclear using better technology.

Long term? We have to deal with a massive trade deficit and budget deficit now. The new technologies part is the long term. Look right now I fight with some members of this board over global warming since I believe that only 10-15% of the warming that occurred between 1977-98 was due to Co2 emissions. I fully believe that within five years I will be fighting with ditto heads that will be saying see all the global warming was caused by nature and the cooling proves that. It is the price you pay when you try to make decisions on facts and not ideology.

In the Southwest the Hopi have been devasted by CA decision to close a coal fired electric plant in Nevada which they supplied with coal. The budget cuts impacted people that would love to have the income of a lucky ducky. The risks on a failure to getting the science right on global warming are not all in favor of cutting emissions. Even much higher electric rates impact the poor more.

10-15% seems like an arbitrary number. Just remember that we were just as concerned about another ice age in the 1970’s. I’m in the natural order of things camp. We don’t understand enough about climate change to label what’s man made vs. what occurs naturally.

The 10-15% figure was based on a peer reviewed paper that argued that co2 was only 1/7 the warming agent that other models assumed. It was published in 80’s and despite trying to find it, I cannot. I think the work has been vindicated over the years by the lack of warming over the last 15 years. However, even a warming of .14 degrees instead of 1 degree per decade is a major problem over enough decades. But since both the PDO and sunspots will prevent warming for the next few decades we do not need to move now before alternative energy is ready. We may even prevent some really cold temperatures such as I experienced in Vermont growing up in the 70’s. But when nature swings back to warming around 2030 we don’t want to be adding additional co2 on a parts per million basis.

Dan, you can obfuscate and pontificate here all you like, but the fact remains that you are wrong. And you work for an industry that depends upon obfuscation and pontification for its survival. In that sense, how are your canned talking points any different from Smithers’s?

Your posts on this subject sound like nothing so much as the States Rights people in the sixties trying to justify “scientifically” why the “Negro Problem” had to be approached gradually so the country didn’t suffer a huge shock to its system. Or more recently, the increasingly shrill justifications against gay marriages.

Please think about this?

Until you can explain how we can have 15 years of no global warming when co2 is suppose to be the primary driver of global warming you are the one that is engaged in pontification. The science community is increasing agreeing that they got the science wrong on global warming. Not that there is not global warming but their numbers were way off. BTW, you might also explain why the ice caps on Mars decreased during the last 70 years too. Not too many SUVs there. Don’t think it had anything to do with the most sunspots in 8000 years? For hundreds of years man has observed that low number of sunspots translates to low temperatures and vice versa. Because modern science cannot explain the exact mechanism does not make them wrong.

Your posts on this subject sound like nothing so much as the States Rights people in the sixties trying to justify “scientifically” why the “Negro Problem” had to be approached gradually so the country didn’t suffer a huge shock to its system. Or more recently, the increasingly shrill justifications against gay marriages.

Yeah Dan, don’t be relying on science, fess up to your racism and gay hatred!

Besides, your science is all wrong, the science of the left is all peer reviewed and funded and backed by all real scientist and Nancy Pelosi also Algore got a peace prize or something. That’s how science works, by consensus of the majority and which side got the oscar.

Yes, I am a racist homophobic person for believing in science and logic. BTW, I have never worked for a coal or oil company. But if I ever did why is science funded by people that want to find global warming (Government and UN) to justify taxes and regulation, less bias than science funded by coal or oil companies?

the science of the left is all peer reviewed

The science on the right and especially the “science” of the plurality of the right’s base is far inferior to the science on the left. It is not even a debatable discussion. Only 6% of scientists even CLAIM they are Republican. Why?

IDK. Maybe they feel embarrassed that their ancestors had dinosaurs as pets? Or maybe because they didn’t know that in legitimate rape the women can’t get pregnant? Maybe they didn’t hear yet that the fossil record was God’s way to trick us into thinking the world was more than 6000 years old. Or they never realized that massive pollution on a global scale could be so darn good for the environment. I don’t get it.

The science on the right and especially the “science” of the plurality of the right’s base is far inferior to the science on the left. It is not even a debatable discussion.

There you go again, you cannot settle a scientific question by making it a popularity contest. Your argument is just plain silly.

Then you throw in dinosaurs, rape, god and what’s good for the environment. Amazing

The global warming science has taken hit after hit after hit, things like the warming not happening for well over a decade, the Himalayan glacier prediction was bunk, altered and bunk data, climate gate, …

Definitive science or at least predictions of the models proving to be true needs to occur as opposed to attacking any science that doesn’t support your side.

Then you throw in dinosaurs, rape, god and what’s good for the environment. Amazing

What IS amazing is how damn dumb the plurality of America’s right-wing’s base IS on science. It’s an embarrassment to my country and I hear it from foreign tourists in Rio all the time. USA is becoming a joke on these issues. They laugh at the ignorance. Trust me.

I threw in dinosaurs, evolution, rape, God and environment because they touch upon issues that represent prime examples of Republican JUNK SCIENCE beliefs.

It is beyond moronic. It is ignorance so profound that it is dangerous.

What IS amazing is how damn dumb the plurality of America’s right-wing’s base IS on science.

Calling the right dumb doesn’t accomplish anything.

Why do you think the warming has stopped for so long in spite of the models predicting rapid warming?

‘I hear it from foreign tourists in Rio’

Well that’s conclusive evidence for sure.

‘USA is becoming a joke on these issues’

I spent a lot of time in Latin America growing up. If I spent some time with individuals, they would usually open up and tell me what they didn’t like about the US. It was stuff like lending the govts money then forcing things on them. Invading, CIA stuff.

So how do your tourists feel about what Obama did to the elected government in Honduras? Did you know the DEA is down there shooting unarmed women from helicopters? That’s your lovely ‘left’ in action.

Basically, I’m not buying your left\right love/hate view from down south. I know better. They don’t know left in right in the US. They just feel the constant pressure and oppression from our policies, including the current president.

‘It is ignorance so profound that it is dangerous’

Maybe you should write Obama and tell him to take them out with drones. He’s asserted that authority already, and maybe you can convince them about these ‘dangerous’ people who don’t agree with you.

I miss the days when people could think what they liked and others would defend their right to do so.

I spent a lot of time in Latin America growing up.

The American right-wing was not stupid on science when you were growing up so this would not have come up.

‘I hear it from foreign tourists in Rio’ Well that’s conclusive evidence for sure.

It is conclusive evidence that I do hear it.

Did you know the DEA is down there shooting unarmed women from helicopters?

No. That sucks.

Basically, I’m not buying your left\right love/hate view from down south. I know better.

You obviously do not know better and you sure don’t know about Brazil or the makeup of the ZonaSul tourists. I’m in contact with educated foreigners and Brazilians on a regular basis. The one’s who know anything about the American political system side’s beliefs (and there are many) think the right’s science and religion injected into politics is a complete joke and dangerous. (War’s anyone?)

Maybe you should write Obama and tell him to take them out with drones.

Like the Republicans would have less? Sure they would.

maybe you can convince them about these ‘dangerous’ people who don’t agree with you

The right-wing’s “junk science” and their over injecting their religion into politics IS dangerous. (Religious Wars and End of Days anyone?)

Calling the right dumb doesn’t accomplish anything.

Sometimes a mirror accomplishes something. The right-wing has become dumb on many issues of science the past 30 years. It will do them no favors going forward IMO.

They (Brazilians and tourists) don’t know left in right in the US.

Many of the educated Brazilians and tourists know the basic differences of Dems/Repubs. Unlike Brazil and Europe, (which have many political parties) USA is very easy to characterize politically. We only have 2 parties that are more polarized than at any time in our lives. It’s easy for the media in Brazil, Asia and Europe to make gross generalities.

Many Brazilians and tourists know American left/right stereotypes and they follow American PRESIDENTIAL elections closer than Americans think. And many think the right’s “science” and religion are a bit weird.

“Thinking what you like” and presenting opinion as science are antithetical. (I’m pretty sure that was Rio’s point.)

When you were growing up, science was still ascendant in the USA, and not considered the province of “leftists” by partisan interests who manipulated established scientific facts into religious and political issues.

‘Like the Republicans would have less’

Nice deflection. Where is your high horse on Obama executing US citizens, like the 17 YO in Yemen who hadn’t done anything? How does ‘junk science’ compare to killing citizens without even charging them with a crime? Or installing a military junta in central America?

You basically want to shut people up. I’ll move on and let you argue with like minded posters.

‘Like the Republicans would have less’…killing citizens without even charging them…

Nice deflection.

It’s not a deflection. It is a valid comparison in the context of an election where we have only 2 realistic choices. What is the point in bashing one of only 2 candidates on an issue without considering the other candidate’s party’s position or history? There is no point.

Voting for a Republican because a Democrat had set up a military junta in central America would fly in the face of the history of the numerous military juntas that the Republicans have set up in Latin America.

You basically want to shut people up.

No. I’m looking for a logical debate on facts and issues. I rarely find it from the far-right. If I “shut them up”, so be it.

I blame the progressives, they have a history of anti-Americanism, anti-humanism, subversion and lies.

I blame the progressives, they have a history of anti-Americanism, anti-humanism, subversion and lies.

lol…..Yea right….. Listen up to some history. The progressives founded America, they ended slavery, the progressives fought for the women’s right to vote, civil rights and the middle-class.

Dude….you sound so ignorant of the country you call yours.

“Dude….you sound so ignorant of the country you call yours.”

Calling me names will not help you counter the facts stated in my previous post.

“…they have a history of anti-Americanism, anti-humanism, subversion and lies….”

Coming from an immigrant, that takes some serious nerve. Rio is right. You truly ARE ignorant of the history of the country you call “yours” — as well as its founding precepts, apparently. Shame on you.

Calling me names will not help you counter the facts stated in my previous post.

There were no “facts” in your post. Yours was ignorant opinion imo.
And I did not call you names. I said you sounded ignorant of your country’s history. That is the only fact in our last 2 posts to each other.

“Shame on you.”

No, shame on the progressives. The political equivalent of cancer.

I know, maybe you can cool down the atmosphere by forcing evil capitalist city dwellers into urban communes and banning private property - Pol Pot style.

Rural communes that is.

A lot of the money they are making in U.S. could be made outside the country. Most of the functions of wall street really can be done in London or Dubai in which case we get 0 dollars in taxes if they move. They already are manufacturing most everything outside the U.S. and they could move the rest outside to avoid anyU.S. tax liability. The law of unintended consequences is ready to bite you in the Azz on the this one.

The states that have tried this have not fared well. Texas just received a four billion dollar investment by Samsung because of its pro-business and low tax policies. California is broke. When Reagan cut taxes we became a low tax magnet, now we are really a high tax country despite the Bush cuts. I do think there is a problem that a civilized society needs a certain level of revenue and no matter how much additional production lower taxes cause if the tax rate is a zero no revenue is produced. Thus, this race to the lower tax rates has a limit but that said we need to be somewhat competitive with the rest of the world on taxes.

One of the reasons that Ireland seems to be doing better than a Spain or a Greece despite massive debt causing austerity is because it has a lower tax rate which does annoy the rest of Europe. From Wikipedia:

Over the past decade, Ireland’s corporate taxation system has been a source of controversy with some of Ireland’s fellow-member states in the European Union. The French government has over the past decade, most particularly during the premiership of Lionel Jospin, consistently condemned and criticised the Irish corporation tax system. This criticism is based on the belief that the low corporation tax rates enabled Ireland to compete unfairly in attracting international investment. However, despite the French critique of the Irish corporate tax system, the Irish example has won many followers, with many ‘emerging’ and Eastern European economies following the Irish example.

Sounds like you’re saying “civilized society” may not be competitive with less civilized society…at least until things are so uncivilized you can no longer produce efficiently?

We could stop wasting so much energy.

Carl, that is the problem. Especially is a problem, if we absorb the costs of things like education and basic research for the world and developing nations do the production.

Ireland seems to be doing better than a Spain or a Greece….because it has a lower tax rate which does annoy the rest of Europe.

It doesn’t annoy Germany, Norway Sweden, Denmark, Holland, etc. who all have higher taxes and better economies than Ireland now. Low corporate taxes do not mean prosperity for the populations.

June-July 1012 Unemployment rate: (Eurostat, tradingeconomics dot com)

Ireland 14.8%
France 10.1%
Holland 6.5
Sweden 7.5
Denmark 4.5 (May)
Norway 3.0
Germany 6.8%

“A lot of the money they are making in U.S. could be made outside the country.”

Good. Because the idea of generating revenue from American’s, then using it to pay a work force in Asia, is unsustainable as continuing to generate that revenue in America requires American’s go ever deeper into debt.

Let them generate revenue in Asia and use it to pay people in Asia. Keep the revenue generated in the USA, in the USA. And use a hefty tax to ensure the revenue doe not just up in the hands of an ever smaller number of people.

Keep the existing money in the country, and keep it moving, so that we do not need to constantly borrow more money into existence to keep the economy functioning.

This really isn’t that hard to understand. Yes, it would be WONDERFUL if the economy could have massive trade deficits that make some people ever richer, and for that economy to function without unsustainable debt growth…. It would be WONDERFUL if EVERYONE could spend less than they earn, accumulating money….

It would be just as WONDERFUL, and every bit as impossible, to invent a candy crapping unicorn that kept the entire global population well nourished on rainbows, butterflies and magic glitter.

Just happen to leave out Spain and Greece? I was talking about countries that were forced into austerity. Ireland had a banking collapse.

Prosperity is in building houses that can’t be paid for.

He didn’t leave it out, just rendered it complete and utterly moot.

He just proved that other European countries with higher corporate taxes are doing better than Ireland, thus proving your conclusion false and your argument lost.

Logic is not your strong suit, is it?

Rio this may help: Posted by keeptalkinggreece in Economy, Society KeeptalkingGreece is the website.

Greek’s never ending Calvary: Unemployment. Every month, a new record. Unemployment reached 22.5% in April – in comparison 21.9% a month earlier and 16.2% a year earlier. According to Eurostat, Greece has the second-highest unemployment rate within the European Union, after Spain that sadly leads with 24.8% (June data).

All three countries have imposed austerity although I think Ireland has tried to protect its low tax status more. At least its corporate rate. Perhaps in the case of Greece and Spain the austerity has not resulted in more tax revenue since raising rates can actually result in less economic activity and less taxes. Since that was my original point thanks for starting this part of the thread.

Looks like Ireland is at least growing unlike many other countries in the Euro zone

From http://WWW.Merrion-capital.com

July 4, 2012
Recessionary conditions are deepening throughout Euroland, and worsening banking sector problems in a number of ‘peripheral’ nations are exacerbating the economic slump and undercutting confidence. Deteriorating conditions in the Eurozone will have an even greater impact on trade and credit flows both at home and abroad, reverberations that are contributing to a further moderation in world output.

The global economic backdrop remains very challenging for the Irish economy, with key export markets in the Eurozone and UK especially weak. As a result, Ireland’s economic recovery is likely to remain quite subdued, with real GDP growth of less than 1.0% on the card this year. We are forecasting a rise in GDP of 0.5%. Still, a positive out-turn for the second year running in 2012 would be a healthy development especially as many Euroland countries should see a contraction in national output and the Eurozone as a whole is set to record a fall in GDP.

The export sector will be the key driver of Ireland’s economic recovery in the short-term at least and the performance over the past year or so has been relatively strong all things considered. Despite the slowdown in the global economy, it is clear that Ireland has a very healthy and dynamic export model, helped by its focus on recession proof goods. Overall, Ireland is in our view in a much better position than other Eurozone ‘peripheral’ debt countries to move forward once world growth picks up again.

Turkey can you read that? Compare that with Spain and Greece? Lets just try to compare apples with apples. The low taxes did not cause the Irish banks to fail but they are allowing it recover and it does not have the twenty five percent unemployment of Spain and Greece. BTW, on the LSAT I was in the 99% range on logic to answer your question.

Ireland is at least growing

“Growing” does not necessarily measure a country’s prosperity anymore. Ireland “growing” with 15% unemployment tells you something about “growing”.

USA’s GDP is “growing” too but most Americans are not sharing in the “growing” as we used to.

The only things growing in the USA are the GDP, debt and Rich American’s balance sheet.

This is what happens with gross wealth and income inequality. And cutting the taxes on the rich for 30 years have made things worse.

15% UE is something to admire?

You have got to be kidding.

Rio this may help….Since that was my original point thanks for starting this part of the thread.

No. Your point was not simply comparing Greece/Spain’s taxes/economies with Ireland’s. Your original point mentioned France and “the rest of Europe” and the implication was that lower corporate taxes make for better economies which I disproved.

June-July 1012 Unemployment rates:
Ireland 14.8% (With all their “low corporate taxes)
France 10.1%
Holland 6.5
Sweden 7.5
Denmark 4.5 (May)
Norway 3.0
Germany 6.8% sources: eurostat, tradingeconomics dot com

I know but he still left and many others have renounced citizenship to avoid taxes. You do not have to lose many billionaires to lose a lot of taxes even if they are just paying 15% of their income in taxes to due to capital gains policy.

People might thump their chests when threatening to leave, but the bottom line is that anywhere else you are a foreigner (even if you buy citizenship).

When the global meltdown happens you’re gonna wanna be in the USA, with it’s might military machine protecting you.

When the global meltdown happens you’re gonna wanna be in the USA, with it’s might military machine protecting you.

As long as the perimeter includes you, anyway.

So? This juvenile and stupid argument about leaving if the taxes are to high assumes no one else can make a lot of money and employ people.

There are 10’s of THOUSANDS of people who WISH they had that kind of income and would gladly and WILLINGLY pay those kind of taxes.

So hit the trail. We dare you. 99% of this country isn’t going to miss you and WILL get along just fine, thrive even! without you. because you ARE just as replaceable as the poorer people you despise.

I know but he still left and many others have renounced citizenship to avoid taxes.

Good frikkin’ riddance! Let them crash the economies of their new sucker/countries.

If it was possible why didn’t the socialistic countries develop solar and leave U.S. in the dust? They still can’t produce energy from solar at competive prices. See Spain, although they recently changed to a conservative government due to the collapse in their economy, BTW, I think Obama now deserves the title so Carter falls to number 2.

You still aren’t paying attention.

They have. Did. Done.

Next the thing you will be saying is why didn’t they develop high speed trains if it was such a good idea.

Oh wait… they did. Where’s ours?

If the prices are competitive why are they cutting back on solar when they are only up to 3 to 4% of their total yearly electric generation is solar energy, in Germany? Why does Spain have 25% unemployment and plummenting green jobs. Ireland at 15% and a growing economy is much better off.

Where DO you get your lies?

why didn’t the socialistic countries develop solar and leave U.S. in the dust?

Not much solar but Brazil’s “socialist” 30 year program enabled them to become energy independent unlike USA’s “free-market” 30 year energy FAILURE.

USA could have done it too with a “socialist” 30 year program and the USA would have been a much greater and stronger nation for it, but investing in one’s country to be great is now called “socialist”.

Brazil found 2 more offshore oilfields the past month. Go figure.

What lie Turkey? Check wikipedia for the solar numbers, check the Internet for the unemployment numbers in Spain and Ireland. Your Saul Alinsky tactics do not work with me. He was one of the most vile humans ever to walk the earth. He admired the tactics of the mafia. He may be Obama’s hero but he does not impress me.

“Your Saul Alinsky tactics do not work with me. He was one of the most vile humans ever to walk the earth. He admired the tactics of the mafia.

Who is Saul Alinsky? Which mafia tactics did he admire? I don’t have to admire the character of Dennis Rodman to recognize that he made a place for himself by specializing. I might even recommend that tactic.

He may be Obama’s hero but he does not impress me.”

Really? How do you know this?

“But no, he was the “worst President ever” according to the oiligarchy and its sheeple.”

He WAS the worst President ever, now we have a new front runner.

Speaking of those two guys, the middle east would have been much better off without the Carter and Obama Administrations, mostly due to both of them facilitating the spread of radical Islam.

(Carter) WAS the worst President ever, now we have a new front runner.

Worst?? Are you from Albania or something? Not America right? …..Man…….Gosh……..How old are you? 15? Carter is considered in the middle of the pack now. And he is rated better and better as time goes along. Check wiki. Check …….awe man forget it….you are lost in right-wing, modern day propaganda………..you are sleepy…..you feel sleepy…..

you are lost dude

Again with the insults.

Unless you’re the driver.

By the way, how did you divine a preponderance of trades are based on giving too much credence to the power of incumbency? Or do you just not understand how markets work?

You post a lot of markets, so you must know this undeniable truth. Everyone of the market is rigged including the election market.

But how many true Romney enthusiasts do you hear from? I finally saw my *first* Romney bumper sticker recently on a coworker’s car. I mentioned to him that his was the first one I’d seen and he was a bit sheepish and mumbled something about his daughter putting it on there but he didn’t think it was such a good idea because it was a Mercedes and that just reinforced the stereotypes about Romney.

I have seen a few conservative Catholic friends on Facebook really get fully on board with Romney recently due to his VP pick, but that’s the only real enthusiasm I’ve seen. Plenty of bashing of both sides, though.

This orthodox Catholic isn’t thrilled with Ryan, who talks like a Fundy and not a Catholic.

Colorado are you an orthodox Catholic or just a Catholic that is just orthodox? Just curious, I am a Catholic myself but more cafeteria than orthodox.

If you do not understand the question:
orthodoxcatholicchurch.org

That said, while people aren’t energized by Romney, Obama’s lackluster performance could definitely put Mitt in the White House, unless of course the Romney campaign commits another gaffe.

Oh well, I guess I’ll just throw away my vote on Ron Paul.

My mother, the most liberal person I know, will not vote for Obama this term. Will she vote for Romney? Probably not. She’ll likely sit it out.

saw my *first* Romney bumper sticker

Dude, you’re in Boulder LOL. See them all over down here around JeffCo and Arapahoe County…

She could probably vote for Nader or whoever the Green Party candidate is.

Colorado are you an orthodox Catholic or just a Catholic that is just orthodox? Just curious, I am a Catholic myself but more cafeteria than orthodox.

orthodox with a lower case “o”. As in non-cafeteria. I figure, if you’re gonna be cafeteria, then you might as well switch to the Episcopal church.

I used the term “orthodox” as opposed to “conservative” as most “conservative” Catholics actually hold some Protestant Fundy beliefs, which makes them heterodox.

orthodoxcatholicchurch.org

Those guys sound more “Orthodox” (with an uppercase “O”) than Catholic. Actually, they come across as a group that broke away from the Orthodox church.

Nobody who voted for McCain in 2008 will vote for Obama in 2012. Millions who voted for Obama in 2008 will either not vote or vote for Romney.

And millions who voted for McCain either won’t vote or will vote 3rd party.

And as others have said, the polling will need to be done on a state level to be meaningful.

At this point, I think it could go either way. As for the “futures” predictions … we’ll see how that turns out.

And this is why Obama will lose, and badly. Nobody who voted for McCain in 2008 will vote for Obama in 2012. Millions who voted for Obama in 2008 will either not vote or vote for Romney.

Nothing sours young voters like tough economic times. Few jobs and high debt.

On the other hand, the current system - political and media - present only two choices. So to many, it’s going to be a question of which is the least bad: Rolls Royce or Stale Hope and Change.

“These polls are meaningless. Polls in late October might give some clue, but this is too early for anything.”

Of course. When Romney is winning polls are meaningless. When Obama is winning polls are definitive. I forgot.

Agree. We haven’t even had debates yet…. Though I bet we can script them.

Romney: Take back the government from the socialists (meaning environmental and labor protections, catch up with China in the race to the bottom), repeal Obamacare, less government, meaningful entitlement reform while protecting today’s seniors(code for screwing those under 55), lower the rate and broaden the base (code for screwing the middle class)…

Obama: Lift up the middle-class (without any specific policies to do so), protect women and minority rights, rich pay fair share (meaning 18% effective rate for the top earners instead of 17%)…

Blah, blah, blah. More rearranging deck chair….

Meanwhile, $600B a year flows out of circulation via international trade imbalances, and another $700B flows into the bank accounts of those that already have more money than they spend, and we pretend that the economy is working, by adding $1.3T a year new debt/money.

Here is what I want to know. Which party is going to make fundamental fixes to the economy so that we’re not dependent on 10% of GDP new debt every year?

Are Reps or Dems going to end free trade?

Are Reps or Dems going to return to a 1950s style tax code?

Are Reps or Dems going to attack and reverse the trade imbalances that have forced us to live on unsustainable debt growth?????

This sucka is going down, and I really could not care less which do-nothing party is in charge when we go under.

“Are Reps or Dems going to end free trade? ”

Why in the world would any of them do something that idiotic?

’something that idiotic’

Yeah, sending factories to communist China, then having to borrow money from communist China because we’re broke is the two party enlightenment.

So Ben,

End free trade? Is that what you are saying?

Will there be teleprompters at the debates? Or at least ear pieces for the candidates?

This is the main determining factor in who I will vote for.

End free trade? Is that what you are saying?

“Free trade”? What free trade?

We buy everything the Chinese make, lowering or even removing tariffs. But if you want to sell them Buicks (which they seem to like), well pilgrim, you have to make them in China. Boeing’s been forced into a joint venture in China (otherwise they’ll buy Airbus jets). Yeah … free markets.

There is no free trade. We are the only chumps who provide full access to our markets. Everyone else jealously protects their markets and job bases.

“and broaden the base (code for screwing the middle class)…”

If you read the link I posted above, Romney has said that he doesn’t want to touch most of the MID, tax exemption for employer provided health insurance, and charitable deductions. I’m guessing he isn’t going to get rid of the exclusion/deduction for 401k and IRA savings. Yes, these programs mostly help the upper middle class and wealthy, but they impact the middle class too. We know he wants to lower overall rates and certainly isn’t going to up the rates on dividends and cap gains. Where is there a tax impact on the middle class? The new money (he says his tax plan will be revenue neutral) will have to come from the lower middle class and the poor. There isn’t any body else.

Romney has said that …

He says lots of things … then shakes the Etch-A-Sketch and later denies ever having said such things.

“…end free trade? Why in the world would any of them do something that idiotic?” Richard “Dick” U. Smithers, Walton family spokesman, 2012

Six Waltons Have More Wealth Than the Bottom 30 % of Americans (100 million Americans) Forbes 12/14/11

Different people will take this different ways, but Jeffrey Goldberg tells us that six members of the Walton family (the original owners of WalMart) have more wealth than the bottom 30 % of Americans.

Well they earned it didn’t they? After all, they DID choose the right parents.

Because it agrees to your wishes?

Nope. Because it tracks the actual delegate counts and aggregates the polls as meta-analyses.

Trade deficit in AZ? I didn’t realize states had trade deficits. Tell me more.

Meant budget deficits…. but, yes, we also have trade deficits. Just like the country as a whole, we import more than we export and are being kept alive via USA Government deficit spending (in the form of Luke Air Force Base).

Huh?

http://ld18democrats.org/2012/08/05/the-arizona-state-budget-balanced/

Darrel is lying again. Even his Democrat friends admit Arizona’s budget is balanced.

And now by law, Arizona must have a balanced budget. California will not ever have that law until it gets bailed out by the taxpayers at the federal level. Grasshoppers are fiddling.

He supports whoever the voices on the radio tell him to.

Congressional Republicans must not feel very confident about winning the presidency and keeping control of the House. If they did, they would join with Democrats to revise the filibuster rules.

Polly, I have heard that they only need 51 to repeal Obamacare. If we need 60 it’ll never happen and I know that there’s a chance that it can be repealed.

Avocado, Romney is not Bush. You might be right about Romney in that he might not be successful, because after all we would have to rely on the Republicans to actually do something (other than roll over or maybe bend over). But you are wrong about calling me a sheeple. If I vote for Romney at least I am voting for change. What do you propose? Follow Obama’s plan??? Oh, haven’t you gotten the message, HE HAS NO PLAN!

howiewowie, true that there are some states that don’t have much petrol to farm, but one in particular, CA, could unleash its economy, pay for it’s debt and put thousands of people back to work. Regulations under the Obama Administration have exploded. The bureacracy for Obamacare is still trying to figure out how they’re going to implement the act and our businesses have no idea what’s going to happen. How does a business plan for the future when they don’t know what the future holds? There is a lot of uncertainty out there. Bush tax cuts, if they go away the taxes go up and take the money away from the people and the businesses that would use that money to buy things, invest or hire employees.

Bush tax cuts were the most irresponsible type. They didn’t do anything to address the tax code to balance the revenue decline and there was nothing in place to take care of them. Chickens of the Bush administration are coming home to roost, but there is NOTHING Obama and the do nothing congress has done to help. If anything, they’ve made things worse.

“So, a woman has about 4 weeks from conception, 2 weeks from being “late” to figure out she is pregnant and get an abortion. “

Some women conceive while on the pill. They never miss a period.

Some women are very irregular and may not be aware that they are pregnant until after 8 weeks. This is especially true of early puberty and pre-menopause, both times where the mother is more at risk and where the risk of fetal anomalies is higher.

I knew a woman in college who had never had a period. I think she was told she was not fertile. That may or may not have been true.

“Make an exception for the “health of the mother” and “significant defect or malformation in the fetus or risk there of”, and I bet we’d still get a significant portion of the 12% of abortions that occur beyond the first trimester.”

Based on my conversation with an anti-abortionist, this is a loophole you can drive a truck through. Who is to say when the health of the mother is at risk? Does this include mental health?

Who determines significant risk of defect or malformation? Does this let alcoholics off the hook?

“So, with a looming deadline, I suspect that a significant portion of those 88% of abortions would still occur.”

Might it increase the number of abortions? If there is less time to decide, would it tip the balance in favor of maintaining the status quo (for the mother - no baby)?

OTOH, if money is an issue, it would allow less time to raise the money for an abortion.

Do anti-abortionists favor free pre-natal care for all fetuses? Would that include free food and pre-natal vitamins for their mothers? The one I talked with last year did not favor supporting other people’s children.

(I haven’t seen my other comments come through. It occurs to me I may be talking to myself. )

“Some women conceive while on the pill. They never miss a period.”

Then they need to do the 3-week real pill, 1 week of sugar pill to keep track of the days pills where you do have a period every month.

And, what percentage of pregnancies is this anyway?

“Some women are very irregular and may not be aware that they are pregnant until after 8 weeks. This is especially true of early puberty and pre-menopause, both times where the mother is more at risk and where the risk of fetal anomalies is higher.”

Allowing us to drive that truck through the loophole of “risk to the health of the mother or development of the fetus”.

Again, what % of pregnancies is this? Again, since more than half of abortions occur within 8 weeks, and 88% occur within 12 weeks (when these “very irregular woman” would not have any outward signs of pregnancy) I have to assume we’re talking a fairly low %.

On one extreme, we have abortion on demand up to the point of viability. On the other extreme, we have people that would like to ban all abortions and some even want to ban abortive birth control like the pill, IUD, and morning after pill.

A compromise would be somewhere between these extremes. Not everyone in every circumstance that wants an abortion gets one. Not every pregnancy is carried to term.

The added advantage of the “beating heart” is that is also the criteria for death…. AND it eliminates the frequently incorrect slogan “an abortion stops a beating heart”.

It is fixed, testable, verifiable, AND, most importantly, makes no one happy. The only possible compromise is one that makes no one happy.

“Might it increase the number of abortions?”

Possible. Not a problem if the goal is a compromise between the current abortion on demand for all, and the other extreme of no abortions at all.

“if money is an issue, it would allow less time to raise the money for an abortion.”

An absolute must for this compromise is federal funding for abortions where the heartbeat has not yet started ….. in the ideal world, this would be standard coverage under a federal single-payer universal coverage plan.

“Do anti-abortionists favor free pre-natal care for all fetuses?”

Again, any compromise on abortion would have to include we continue things like food stamps and WIC for pregnant mothers, as well as AFDC for women that give birth to these otherwise unwanted babies.

If you want the women to be forced to have the babies, than we’re all going to pay for the raising of those babies. The flip side should be home visits and inspections to ensure the proper care is given to all these kids we’re paying for. The last thing we need or want is more kids growing uncared for and malnourished.

“Not a problem if the goal is a compromise between the current abortion on demand for all”

But we don’t have abortion on demand for all - only in the first trimester. You are simply advocating changing the timeframe of abortion on demand.

And who is it that wants compromise? Certainly not the rabidly anti-abortion folks who say no way, no how, at no time, under no circumstances. They will not stop until it is legally murder in all cases. Roe v. Wade is compromise - and a reasonable one.

The ultimate solution would be a technological one that takes an unwanted fetus and develops it to term either by implantation in another uterus or in an artificial uterus. Then a woman can give an embryo up for adoption at any point in a pregnancy and no woman’s health is at risk. How many orphanages will we need?

“Then they need to do the 3-week real pill, 1 week of sugar pill to keep track of the days pills where you do have a period every month.”

So they have a period in spite of being pregnant. It is usually smaller in volume, but not totally absent.

““significant defect or malformation in the fetus or risk there of””

There is significant risk of fetal alcohol syndrome with reasonable amounts of alcohol at critical points in a pregnancy. You don’t have to get plastered, be a binge drinker, or an alcoholic. A couple of drinks will do.

From the Mayo Clinic website: “There is no amount of alcohol that’s known to be safe to consume during pregnancy. If you drink during pregnancy, you place your baby at risk of fetal alcohol syndrome. ”

So all a woman would have to do to fit into this exception would be to have a drink.

I also think there is a legal argument to be made for self defense in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy.

No, but he plays one on this blog.

The right’s science on climate change is much more influenced by money and politics too???

Dear Rio, to say that the right is much more influenced by money and politics is just not true. Get real.
_______________________________________

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/143573/
_____________________________________

Anyway if you Google this you can come up with any conclusion and to be honest I’m not sure which of the conclusions is correct. Is the climate getting warmer? Maybe. Is man causing it? Maybe somewhat.

I think about the effects of China and India going into an industrial period of growth and the fact that their populations are driving around more autos. But there is also the fact that volcanos are spewings tons of pollutants into the air every day.

http://volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/

So why should be strain to reduce our emissions, which are already pretty clean, so that China, India and the volcanos can wipe out any improvements that we might realize. It costs a ton of money to follow the mandates of the EPA and if we’re going to spend the money, lets make sure we do it right.

Just today there was a ruling that went against the EPA whose new regulations were going to force coal fired plants to shut down. Coal is dirtier than other forms of electrical generation, but our coal plants are a lot cleaner than those in other countries.

Just so you know, conservatives are not against clean air and clean water, we just want to make sure we’re doing something that is cost effective. Why spend billions to improve something that will not affect the total atmospheric content of those pollutants?

Rio, to say that the right is much more influenced by money and politics is just not true…..we just want to make sure we’re doing something that is cost effective.

For big business I’m sure.

I never said I was for “the taxes” on this issue and I am not looking at it in that light.

I’m looking at the science first and then who pays for it.