It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 30
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:22 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you, TheRedneck. And I return the compliment. I think it comes with reading and observation over the many years we have been given. For ex, re the cars... it all started a few years ago with a literally three hour midnight ride with a tow truck driver, as he was taking us home along with our pu that had finally given up its transmission. He filled us in with all he knew about the auto industry, which perked my interest to find out more. .... and I found out later that my Jeep had a Toyota transmission.

It all boils down to greed.

What was the saying from the '80s... Greed is good! That was for the investors, but, yes, it has been, especially after WW2, that Americans have been out front with buy buy buy. A constant search for feeding the hungry ghost, for both investor and buyer. And as waged did not grow since the 1970s to match consumer demand, we went further and further into debt to keep up a disappearing middle (and lower!) lifestyle. The '90s escalated this debt growth.

And a curious thing, Americans began to be thought of as "consumers" instead of "citizens". To the point where we now look at government as a business. Interesting.

Yep, China played their cards well. You know, that is the thing also. You mentioned about long term future planning. I can remember during the Cold War how America would intentionally do the exact opposite of whatever the USSR did. Long term planning was what Communists countries (like China, too) did, and, by golly, we can't have that! I think that idea suited us for the time (as we just grew economically anyway), but it did not serve us well in the '80s as we went for (very) short gains over long term thinking.

OTOH I think that corporate/govt leaders did have ideas that, as I've said prior, the US economy would transition from manufacturing to service and finance. That was our long term planning. And, of course, service work pays less. IMO Obama did nothing more than protect the US economy, but the US economy had become one oriented to service and finance. (How fitting is it that a fast food corporate head become Labor Sec .... lol case rested)

I tell ya, though, this thing about not giving workers full time positions started in the 1980s, as our economy was being re-structured under Reagan economists. Heck, there was even talk back then about making employees become "consultants/contracted labor" in order to avoid paying FICA, benefits, etc. No, this working less than full time hours did not start with Obama and the ACA; rather, it was just a continuation of employer strategy to not want to deal with something they did not like.

Well, you and I are going to disagree about Trump as POTUS. Majorly. You know, when I first heard Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC convention, I was thrilled. I had no idea who he was, but he sounded like a leader and someone I could vote for in the future. Shortly afterward when I began to read what little there was out there about this young Senator, I was actually turned off quickly by some of his thinking.... it was too conservative! But it fit the Dem Party at the time (since the mid '80s), as they had turned to their corporate wing to find candidates to win against the Rep Party (which had always been the party of big business).

After Bush, Obama did bring back the needed intellect, wisdom, and temperament to the office of POTUS. But because he had not been widely known before his candidacy, his public portrayal became whatever people thought of him. He was portrayed as a Black Radical, a Marxist, and eventually, by Tea Party time, a Hitler (that came from the left fringe, not the right... hence the contradictions). He was non of the above. History will indeed judge his governance as a moderate in the Republican tradition.

But by Obama's first election, something else had happened along the way that would greatly effect his governance, something I won't go into at this point (as I have elsewhere), but, briefly, the structure of our political system had changed, head long into a de facto parliamentary system. Which meant for oppositional governing, which the GOP did. No longer were we set up to compromise, as our Founding Leaders had envisioned we must.

Why I just wrote about Obama is because I see Trump as being the same with public portrayal. Trump is whatever his supporters think him to be, because he has had little for us all to go by. Also, IMO too much celebrity worship went on; and (most) celebrities have a public persona and a private persona. And on top off that, Trump is a salesman, adding to that special conman persona, and on top of that, he is a salesman of himself, always has and always will.

I feel we are going to be on the Exxon Trumpeze with Captain Hazlewood Trump at the helm, sailing into the perfect storm.

But that's just my opinion. I hope to God I'm wrong.

Oh, you mentioned about street riots. Now, I know some young people will think you and I were probably around at the time of the original Boston Tea Party lol , but I know we learned about it in school. Such behavior is very much in the American tradition. What it has been tempered to be down through the years has been public protests. And that, quite frankly, is the only way things get changed from the outside in America. It is pressure from the outside that produces change in America. It is non-violent protest and movements outside of govt that change things. Elections are necessary, but not sufficient.

Ok 2c data used up.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:55 AM
a reply to: desert

You know, I have learned a lot from people like that driver myself. I also remember popping the hood on my brand-spanking-new 1980 Chevrolet LUV and seeing the letters "ISUZU" stamped across the valve cover. That's when I realized there was a problem. Awesome little truck though.

As a child of the 70s, I clearly remember my dismay as the materialistic 80s got into full swing. Yes, greed was good, or so we were told. But power was also good. Gold is pretty, but people are useful. That's where the parliamentary system got started, because power meant others had to do as they were told.

I seem to remember that era as being the beginning of business administration degrees being the 'default' degree... interesting correlation if my memory is still working correctly.

The move toward service was, as I saw it, a response to decreasing manufacturing jobs and a way to get out from under the hierarchy of the corporate structure. One could start a service business with a few pieces of fairly cheap equipment, but a manufacturing business can easily require millions to start. Of course, you get what you pay for...

We will have to disagree on Trump, but at least we can do so amicably. If he fails, I will join your position against him. I hope (and think) that if he succeeds, you might join mine.

And, ah, I remember the good old days, yes! Paul Revere, now there was a wild young-un if there ever was one! I kept telling him to go buy decent lanterns, but would he listen? No! Silly new-age kids....


posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 12:23 PM

originally posted by: TheRedneck

We will have to disagree on Trump, but at least we can do so amicably. If he fails, I will join your position against him. I hope (and think) that if he succeeds, you might join mine.

I'm gonna be a "watcher". I will give credit if credit is do.

But, as a Progressive Globalist - - - and 70 years old - - - I feel like I'm going backwards.

I do not want to go backwards.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 12:46 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

I really should let you know that continual legislative criticisms about someone leaving legislative office are not helping your position.

I don't know what you mean by this.

I am paying attention to the goings-on, and researching the chosen people (thank GOD Kobach didn't get the job he was up for).

I see your position is coming around, and that is good.
If you are talking about looking at past actions and past stances - why on earth would that not matter today? Did these people have lobotomies? What "legislative criticisms" about someone leaving office are you talking about?

It's okay. You don't have to be gentlemanly about it. I see that you have conceded there are problems. That's good enough. Thanks, no matter how indirectly you felt you needed to say so.

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:18 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I was referring to Sessions. You have voiced several concerns, all having to do with his views toward legislation. Yet you seem to want him to remain as a legislator?

My position has not changed. I support Trump's decisions so far. I have concerns, but not enough to dissuade me from that support. I will reassess his performance during his term, just as I do with every elected official.


posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 01:46 PM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I was referring to Sessions. You have voiced several concerns, all having to do with his views toward legislation. Yet you seem to want him to remain as a legislator?

My position has not changed. I support Trump's decisions so far. I have concerns, but not enough to dissuade me from that support. I will reassess his performance during his term, just as I do with every elected official.

Who said I want him to "remain as a legislator"? What the hell????

I think he should be voted out and left destitute. Don't know when you somehow imagined that he was in any way all right with me. No.
But I don't live there. It's not up to me to decide if he is the best representative of your state. YOU VOTED HIM IN. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that HIS VIEWS are YOUR STATE'S VIEWS.

And that is a bummer.

As for your continued cheerleading -- okay. At least you are admitting that you see cracks in the mirror.....
edit on 12/16/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 09:06 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That's exactly right. I have voted for Sessions (and Shelby) every single time they were on the ballot. I believe both are excellent representatives of my state's interests. You have no dog in that race, as I have no say in who represents your state. That is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, that no one state can control another. It is the very basis of our country.

Therefore, he will either remain a legislator (my actual preference) or he will be Attorney General. Those are the only two choices you have. You seem to prefer, given those two choices, that he not be Attorney General. Therefore you must prefer him to be a legislator.

Wishing he would be voted out of office is like wishing for a pony from Santa Claus. Might make you feel better for a little while, but utterly useless in the end.


posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 10:38 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

lol... and I remember Martha's lovely dinner parties.... no, not Martha Stewart but Martha Washington.

Hey, my ex and I had a used Chevy Luv in 1982! We loved it up to the day we had to sell it to move up to accommodate a growing family a few years later. Used it around town and took it cross country; we had put a shell on it, made a platform in the bed where we stowed stuff underneath in compartments and slept on top at night. Did the same thing to a full size Ford pu, had a great Alaska trip with that truck.

In the 1970s gas shortage, we ended up needing to turn to a Japanese car, because Americans were still making the gas guzzlers. But lol we thought there was an American car (the Colt?) but it turned out it was really a car from Japan. Ended up with a '77 Honda.

continuing on....

One thing I already can't let Trump get away with is taking credit for companies now talking about more jobs in America (IBM and that Japan-Saudi investment co), as such plans have been in the works for awhile. (It's like pointing your finger at a moving cloud and saying you can make clouds move--- which was done by a client of a therapist neighbor years ago.) What saved the 700 Carrier jobs was the Pence state subsidies (throwing money at it) given to the company.

Anyway, yes, you and I can remain on amicable terms. And, yes, I do hope we will have good things to agree on starting next year. When I was in high school decades ago, we learned about "reactionaries", people on the far right spectrum who hated liberals and all things liberal. Don't hear anything about that group nowadays. Most conservatives are not reactionaries. But reactionaries have come to dominate the party.

And that is where I see much of the disagreement, not just here at ATS but all over. Reactionaries have been given increasing political and public power over the years. This is the group that refuses any compromise or change of thought. They are the political "flat Earthers". And usually, as with any extremists, there is a righteousness, an angry righteousness, with their positions. The angry, reactionary voice is what is loudly heard coming from the right; the reactionary has RINOd every conservative as not being conservative (conservative like them, of course, is what they mean).

Hey, at least we no longer have dueling to solve differences!

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 12:47 PM
a reply to: desert

One thing I already can't let Trump get away with is taking credit for companies now talking about more jobs in America

I can give him credit; let me try to explain why:

In 1987, I opened my own business, a C-Corporation supplying drafting services. I started it with $500 and the equipment I already owned (I had been doing side-work for some time). I ran that business for 10 years before it closed due to some medical issues.

It grew fast... so fast I needed to hire help. Working for myself, I didn't have to worry about much; I made whatever the business profited. But employees needed a regular income. I knew that, but it seemed everyone I interviewed either expected to make more than I did or wasn't qualified to do the job. I have had prospects come to the interview drunk, stoned, looking like they crawled out of a gutter... I built that business on customer satisfaction, and that wasn't going to cut it. Then, when I did get a couple of prospects that were acceptable, I ran the numbers. After salary, paid leave, health insurance, OSHA restrictions, and a few dozen other regulatory costs, I suddenly realized I could no longer afford to hire them.

That was around 1990. Today, there is no way in Hades I would even try to open a company like that. The costs have increased tenfold, and I keep hearing rumors about new regulations, higher minimum wage (which would mean a higher wage for everyone), and new restrictions. Even if they're just rumors, they could shut me down cold and cost me everything if enacted, and there's already been some enacted that did do that to other companies.

That's not a friendly business environment, when the costs go through the roof, prices for products have to compete with China where the costs are tremendously lower, people aren't willing to work for what the business can afford, and the business can be shut down at the whim of one idiot in Washington DC.

Here is one person, who has operated a successful business before, telling you exactly how it works and what's wrong. I might consider starting another business if I could assure myself a profit and continued operation... but today I cannot assure myself of either.

Anyone in business has those same concerns. I personally do not have absolute faith in Trump; I'm taking more of a hopeful but cautious attitude. But if I did, if I had spoken directly to him and felt he was compassionate toward my concerns, that might be different. The jobs he has claimed credit for may well have been 'in the works' for some time; probably were. But nobody goes to work until they come into existence. Trump, simply by winning and loudly proclaiming a pro-business atmosphere, may well be responsible for them coming into existence.

The Pence subsidies may have had a lot to do with the job expansion you mention, but it wasn't exactly 'throwing money at it' either. The subsidies were tax breaks to offset regulatory and over-taxation rates. They may wind up being fiscally beneficial, if the taxes paid by those new employees make up the difference. There's a state-subsidized trade school close to me that operates on that principle, and it has been a massive success.

You are talking to a proud conservative, but I honestly do not recognize what passes for conservatism today. Somewhere along the line, conservatism moved, Republican moved, Democrat moved, liberal moved... and I am standing right where I always stood wondering what happened to everybody. I believe in:
  • Equality for everyone - the poor, the rich, black, white, green, purple with pink polka-dots, men, women, gay, straight, diagonal, everyone.
  • Honesty in government, business, and between individuals.
  • Shutting one's trap when something doesn't concern one.
  • Regulating to the smallest extent possible, only where necessary.
  • Freedom to live life as one sees fit, as long as that doesn't seriously harm another.
  • Adherence to the law and especially to the Constitution.
  • Compassion for those less fortunate than oneself.
  • Giving people a chance to work hard and smart to improve their life.
  • Taking responsibility for one's actions.

Apparently that is no longer "conservative.'

But it is me.


posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:11 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

it seemed everyone I interviewed either expected to make more than I did or wasn't qualified to do the job. I have had prospects come to the interview drunk, stoned, looking like they crawled out of a gutter.

Same today, judging from small business owners I have talked with.

And, yes, competition globally has kept wages low here, with Americans needing to buy the cheaper goods and going in debt to keep up.

OTOH I have heard young people opening up successful businesses in niche markets (and even going global). It's definitely a different world out there these days.

The effect of passing Medicare D in 2003 sent many family owned pharmacies out of business.

I'm beginning to think that the American 1% have done the same to us here that the Russian 2% did to their country. The oligarch money has not been circulated back into the economy. Off shore. Look at the West Coast where the Chinese have (much to their country's dismay) sent their money to invest. Of course, it's been in real estate, so a fixer upper can cost $600,000. Without money flowing through their economy, Russians are finding it difficult to start businesses and have customers; the complaints were eerily similar to what we say here.

Well, look, I need to end on a better note. So I'm going to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Alabama was a beautiful state when I last drove through it (in all directions) 20+ years ago, so I want to picture you all having the best of holidays this year. As for me out here, we already got rain, we got snow, so that's ending the year better than when we started. Next year, who knows. But for now, it's all good.

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:33 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Your bullet point list is exactly the same thing I believe in. Just so you are aware of that.
I'm not sure how you think "liberals" are not in alignment of those values. The "regulations" are there because too many people take advantage of others without any regard to the consequences.

Doing away with regulations is - to my thinking - an invitation to cheat, lie, practice creative accounting, fail to report, and otherwise give the finger to everyone else. That is just wrong, in my opinion.

What is it you think liberals believe in, if you don't see that they believe in those very same things?

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:09 PM
a reply to: desert

The base situations you describe have plagued nations since the beginning of commerce. The response we have had as a country are why we are in the shape we are in.

I'm great with charity, for example. But forced charity is not charity; it's robbery. Our entitlement programs have ballooned to the point that we now greatly harm investment by overtaxing our citizens. We also have created generations of people who do not feel the need to work hard, because they can essentially be paid to sit at home and watch TV.

That's not to say I am opposed to social aid programs; I'm not. But there has to be profit in work or work becomes this thing to be avoided. Charity worked much better when churches and private organizations took most of the load rather than the government. They represented true charity: people willingly giving some of their excess to help others.

Same thing with illegal immigration. I truly do feel for those who live in poorer countries. I would love to see them be able to come here and improve their lives. But at the same time, I don't want to see Americans thrown into poverty to lessen poverty on the rest of the world. In a thriving economy, there's enough to go around for all. In a struggling economy, there isn't. It therefore makes no sense to me when anyone who wades across the Rio Grande ditch, breaking the law by doing so, gets free food, free medical care, low-cost tuition, and tons of other goodies through entitlements. All this is happening while Americans are themselves struggling. The end result is our economy is faltering, potential charitable sources are drying up, the government is footing more and more of the bill, taxes are increasing feeding back to the failing economy, and we are all going so deep into debt we may never recover outside of renewing on our debts.

I want to see legal immigration opened up, streamlined, made more accessible to more people. But I also want the borders slammed tightly shut to illegal immigration so that can happen without damaging ourselves in the process.

I feel a lot of the problem before now has been a total misunderstanding of the economic principles involved. That's my primary hope with Trump, that he will make policy based on good sound economic principles. Government has never had the power to grow the economy; all it can do is get out of the way. Hopefully Trump recognizes that fact.

A very Merry Christmas to you as well!


posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:55 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Your bullet point list is exactly the same thing I believe in.

Good! That makes me wonder why the animosity, though.

I'm not sure how you think "liberals" are not in alignment of those values

Well, let's look at a few examples:
  • Recent demonstrations against the election. I wasn't going to be happy with either choice in 2008 (although I chose Obama over McCain, to my eternal shame) and was extremely dismayed with the results in 2012. But never once did I think protesting the election would be appropriate.
  • A flag that symbolized not only my heritage, but that of millions of citizens, was recently demonized to the extent that it was removed from War Memorials dedicated to the soldiers who fought and died under it. Why? Because one obviously sociopathic individual committed a heinous act of inhumanity and had carried that flag. Dylan Roof was just convicted; I have not heard the sentence yet, but I hope they fry his rear end like a roast. And I respect that flag myself... more now than I do the US flag.
  • We got to hear a furor created because North Carolina passed a law against entering the wrong restroom... probably in response to worries over sexual predators. That makes sense to me; if a guy is caught hanging out in the women's room, there is something to charge him with. But then folks start claiming they will need birth certificates to use the restroom. I see that as completely ludicrous and nothing short of an invitation to someone getting raped in a restroom.
  • Every so often, there's a new gun control bill proposed, which is exactly against the 2nd Amendment. It is a blatant violation of rights guaranteed in the Constitution. If certain firearms need to be regulated, the only reasonable and legal way to do so is to amend the Constitution. And I would actually support such an amendment to remove fully-auto firearms and high-yield military weapons (bazookas, RPGs, warheads, nukes) from Constitutional protection. But as long as the present method of trying to bypass the Constitution with laws to prevent people from being able to protect themselves is used, I, along with millions of others, will continue to resist.
  • In a society where it is now practically impossible to live without ID, including getting a job, cashing a check, driving a car, or getting governmental assistance of any kind, it is absolutely ridiculous to oppose a simple ID check to participate in something as critical to our country as an election. Even crazier is to use racism as a reason to oppose it when no indication of such exists.
  • Every so often I hear demands for 'slave reparations' when I, like millions of other Americans, never owned a slave and never had an ancestor who owned a slave. Those making the demand never endured slavery, and never knew anyone who had ever endured slavery.
  • For years now, I have watched celebrities either have their careers destroyed or at least damaged by allegations of "racist," "anti-semite," "homophobe," etc. Hulk Hogan, Martha Stewart, and Dog the Bounty Hunter come to mind. All of these were over comments made in private and never intended for public consumption, not over actions against others or violation of laws. All this while there are still isolated pockets of true racism and hatred out there. The result is that those labels have lost their shock value and true racism continues without fear of being challenged.
  • We have been beset lately by economic policies that place work and self-sacrifice in low esteem, and seek to support laziness and dependence on others through entitlement rewards.

I try desperately not to use labels, but if you want the connotation in my mind from the label "liberal," those are some of the things that come to mind. That's the thing about labels: they have no political affiliation. They hurt everyone.


posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 06:15 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You got it, we do believe in these same things, but it's how we go about doing them that is also important. The further apart on the political spectrum (no matter where we lie--- could even be on the same side of center), the less agreement on how to accomplish that. Let's say, for ex., people agree to discipline a child, but that can range from a mild talking to all the way over to harmful corporal punishment (which at times could lead to death).

I thought I would share this here, too


Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

one source

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 06:41 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Something else to share here, highly relevant to topic. Here's what we'll be up against.

House conservatives want Trump to undo regulations on climate, FDA, Uber

Climate. The Freedom Caucus [Koch ideology] suggests that Trump open up oil exploration on federally owned land, pull out of the Paris climate accords (which will produce “little, if any, environmental benefit”), kill the State Department’s office on climate change and the special envoy for climate change, and basically scratch any office assigned to study it — even one at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pollution, what pollution? I don't see any pollution.

Energy. Republicans suggest scrapping a slew of environmental regulations opposed by the energy industry, as well as the Renewable Fuel Standard itself — “it is based on incredibly mistaken assumptions about domestic oil production, it gives EPA control over the fuels we use, and increases the cost of fuel.”

Pollution returns.

Nutrition. The caucus advises Trump to undo Obama-era guidelines for school lunches (“burdensome and unworkable”; “industries can’t comply with the standards”) and supplements. For the latter, one reason is that the Obama rule “places regulations on the serving sizes of breath mints.”

Why is an industry involved in feeding children in school in the first place?

Net neutrality. The caucus recommends undoing the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 regulation, on the grounds that it did too much in a stroke. “At 400 pages and over 2,500 citations, the network neutrality regulations packs in a lot,” the caucus writes. “The regulations reflect the lack of economic rigor.”

hahaha Net neutrality is gone!

Consumers. The caucus recommends amending the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 “to require that no deference be given to the interpretation of consumer financial law by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.”

Consumers be damned! Back to "Caveat emptor!"

Smokers. One recommendation would end funding for smoke-free public housing; another would remove tobacco products from the Food and Drug Administration’s purview. “The worst fear of cigar manufacturers and smokers alike has been that the FDA will impose the same onerous premarket review requirements on cigars that it currently places on cigarettes,” the Republicans write.

Sell fear to do away with rules corporations don't like.

International development. In addition to nixing the Export-Import Bank — a conservative cause celebre — Republicans advise scrapping the 45-year-old Overseas Private Investment Corp. In both cases, the development organizations are characterized as too political.

Republicans were for it, until they were against it.

Wages. Republicans advise several measures for allowing lower wages, including waiving the Davis-Bacon Act, ending the Obama administration’s overtime rule (currently tied up in court), and ending tougher classification of contractors in part because it “disproportionately hurts independent contractors like Uber and Lyft.” Republicans also suggest ending paid sick leave for federal contractors.

Lower wages. Sure, make American Workers Work For Less .... and less and less. Lower that living standard, because corporations no longer need Americans to buy things, when there's a much bigger market around the globe. BTW that contractor crap was flown in the 1980s and ruled against. No, America doesn't care about its work force..... contracted labor force.... it ain't just Uber.... don't let them fool you with that argument.

Trump will sign what is put in front of him. He will be patted on the head and be told, "Great job! Good Boy!" He'll be happy, and so will the Republicans.

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:35 PM
a reply to: desert

Let me tackle these one at a time. Your previous post was poignant, but it made some base assumptions that are not exactly accurate. Hopefully my responses will clarify why I say that:

Pollution, what pollution? I don't see any pollution.

I have some issues about the oil exploration. First, the natural beauty of any parks or wildlife preserves must be maintained at all costs. Second, the property does not belong to the oil companies. Allowing a private company to simply start drilling is wrong unless the owners (citizens) are well-reimbursed for the mineral rights. Also, just as when dealing with a private landowner, there must be agreement to allow the mineral rights to be sold in the first place. Thus, such agreement can only be given by the US Congress, and I would recommend by a supermajority as well.

As to the climate change office of the State department, why does that even exist? Pollution falls under the jurisdiction if the EPA. Carbon dioxide is also not a pollutant; it exists naturally in the atmosphere and present levels are not dangerous to anyone.

Pollution returns.

I am not familiar enough with the Renewable Fuel Standard to make an informed decision. I do support cleaning fossil fuels to the highest extent practical. Unlike carbon dioxide, sulfur is a serious pollutant.

Why is an industry involved in feeding children in school in the first place?

It shouldn't be, and wouldn't be if the Federal government was not running the schools. Returning school administration to the state level (or preferably local level with minimal state oversight) would resolve this issue.

hahaha Net neutrality is gone!

I oppose any and all regulations on the Internet. That probably would include the Net Neutrality Act, since most Federal acts typically do the reverse of what they appear to intend. The Internet should remain absolutely free to state whatever users wish to state.

Consumers be damned! Back to "Caveat emptor!"

Truth in advertising is one of the few areas where I want the Federal government involved. The duty to do so is defined in the Preamble, under "promote the general welfare." False advertising is dishonest commerce and does the opposite of promoting the general welfare.

I will caveat that statement with this: regulations should also be reasonable.

Sell fear to do away with rules corporations don't like.

I view tobacco as a commodity consumers want to buy which is not overly damaging to others. Thus I oppose regulation on tobacco of any kind, save standards on chemical contaminants and reasonable safety warnings (which I personally think are silly, but not heinous). So I have no problem with removing regulations in this area, just as I oppose anti-marijuana laws.

Yes, I smoke. No, I will not stop smoking.

Republicans were for it, until they were against it.

Again, I do not know enough about the Overseas Private Investment Corp. I do question why the Federal government is operating such an organization.

Lower wages. Sure, make American Workers Work For Less ...

I see no issue with the Davis-Bacon Act. It seems on the surface to be an appropriate law to encourage fairness in wages in an industry where substandard wages are typically used to win bids, resulting in substandard work.

I support Obama's overtime clarification. It addresses a loophole that is being used unfairly against workers. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I am a little torn on the contractor classification issue. Pro, it does end an unfair practice a'la the overtime clarification. Con, I am concerned it could go too far and become another unfair burden to business. Without further clarification, I suppose I would side with the tougher classifications.

Paid sick leave is an industry standard now. As long as it is so, I oppose ending it for Federal workers.

No, scratch that. I oppose ending reasonable sick leave for employees period.

I hope this clarifies my positions somewhat.


posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 08:06 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

There is much we agree on.

The end game of the public lands issue is really about selling off public land, not just the mineral rights, to resource extraction corporations. Here's how Republicans used to be about public lands and the environment

I was the local Miss Tulare County. I was a sorority girl at UCLA. I was a member of the Young Republicans. My whole background told me, “You can’t change things--the government’s always right.” The one thing that was different about me was that my great-grandfathers on both sides rode their horses up the Tule River to a place called Camp Nelson, which is surrounded by Sequoia National Forest. In the 1930s, my grandfather built a cabin there, just a single-walled summer cabin, and I spent every summer of my life there.

When I was about twelve, I talked my parents into getting me a horse. I rode that horse all over those hills and found the old trails that my parents had hiked. At that time, there were no roads in that part of the Sierra Nevada; it was just as untouched as when John Muir saw it.

One summer I stumbled onto a road way back there; it plowed right across the trail. I remember thinking it looked so alien. The next year all that was left of the forest was charred, bulldozed earth. . I didn’t become an activist until some yahoos bought thirty-two acres at Camp Nelson and were going to make a condominium village out of it.

One summer I stumbled onto a road way back there; it plowed right across the trail. I remember thinking it looked so alien. The next year all that was left of the forest was charred, bulldozed earth. I honestly thought there had been a natural disaster, a fire or a storm. But the Forest Service had clearcut it. I didn’t become an activist until some yahoos bought thirty-two acres at Camp Nelson and were going to make a condominium village out of it. They planned to pave over the entire meadow. I had a friend who was an attorney and she sent me a copy of the California Environmental Quality Act. I found out that since there was a master plan they had to do an Environmental Impact Report. Eventually we stopped that project.

A couple of years later, a ski resort was proposed in the Slate Mountain Roadless Area right in the heart of the Sequoia National Forest. My friends told me, “You can’t stop it, you’re wasting time, you’ll make a lot of enemies.” I thought they were probably right, but I remember seeing in this idealistic way that if I didn’t try I’d always wonder if I could have done something. And we did stop it, too.

One thing I got from my parents is a very strong sense of right and wrong, and I knew that what was happening was wrong. I had no idea that it would lead to twenty years of work, but I guess it became part of my identity.


Re Net Neutrality.... most people misunderstand it, even people who are in favor of the idea behind it can be against it because 1) Obama was for it, 2) it's "govt regulation". Basically

It’s the idea that internet giants like Comcast and AT&T shouldn’t be able to charge us more if want to watch a movie on Netflix or a viral video on YouTube. They can charge more or less to us based on usage and speed, but not based on the content of what we're watching or reading.
Under net neutrality... Americans will still be able to buy whatever speed internet package they want. If you want a connection slow as a snail you can have it. If you want a lightning-fast connection you can have it, and your provider can charge you whatever the market will bear.

The only thing that President Obama’s proposed net neutrality plan does is prevent internet service providers like Comcast from blocking or slowing down websites that Comcast doesn’t like or that are owned by rival companies.

from Thom Hartmann Thom has a great radio show; he's smart and knows what he's talking about.

More explanation by Thom

Setting up a tiered system could allow huge corporations to pay hefty fees, and ensure that their content is delivered faster than the work of independent artists, journalists, and even shows like this one. And, you better believe that massive internet providers like Comcast and Verizon will simply pass that fee right on to the customer.

Re Renewable Fuel Standards involve the mixing of biofuels. It gets technical, and maybe some of those technicalities can be made to work better, but to do away with it entirely is foolish in this day and age.

posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 08:28 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

As to the climate change office of the State department, why does that even exist? Pollution falls under the jurisdiction if the EPA.

"Climate change" is used by the fossil fuel industry to steer away from concerns over "pollution". "Climate change" they have found is "dabatable", whereas pollution is not. The reason there is concern in the State Department for pollution is because China's pollution reaches our West Coast, just as Fukushima's radiation reaches here.

Pollution is not debatable

The air in much of China is so bad the government has repeatedly declared "war" on it. The enemy are tiny particulates which spew forth from countless cars, coal-fired power stations and steel plants to create a dense, putty-coloured smog.

"Beijing's extreme pollution and the 'red alert' are connected to China's addiction to coal burning, and it's very energy intensive way of industrial growth. Coal burning is the biggest single source of air pollution in China, and burning of coal, has for the first time in this century declined in 2014 compared to 2013.

"We're seeing renewable energy picking up and taking larger share of total power use in China, and then it's actually already eating up the market space of coal.

What is China doing to tackle its air pollution?

posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 09:23 AM
a reply to: desert

There is much we agree on.

Yes, there is.

The end game of the public lands issue is really about selling off public land

I have no doubt there are forces that care much more about green paper than they do about nature. I am definitely not one of them. I recently tried to sell some mature timber off my land, ancient trees that were not going to grow anymore, all types of hardwoods. I could easily mark a couple hundred trees whose removal would not harm the forest. I never did, because everyone I contacted was only interested in clear cutting. That will never happen while I am here.

Humans have colonized most of the surface of the planet. I see no reason that protecting a small part for the enjoyment of others is a problem. Here, we have done so very well. We have unspoiled public areas like Buck's Pocket, Cathedral Caverns, Little River Canyon, and plenty of others. TVA, in the process of damming the river to provide hydro power, also turned it into a natural wetland paradise for all to enjoy. I personally care for 90 acres of unspoiled forest as I mentioned above.

The trick, in my opinion, is balance. There is no balance in selling off national parks or preserves. Oil exploration itself can balance, but only with close supervision. One acre holding a well and pump is not going to destroy the thousands of acres around it... but clear cutting access and sloppy construction that promotes leaks can disturb everything around. Hence my concerns.

Re Net Neutrality.... most people misunderstand it

I do now remember the bill; thank you for jogging my memory. Yes, it was a good bill and needs to remain law. The Internet has been referred to as the new 'Wild West,' and that is a somewhat apt description. The Wild West may have been harsh and difficult, but it was also the last bastion of true freedom in our history. I think we need a little bit of Wild West in our society, lest we become lost in the mire of civilization.

Re Renewable Fuel Standards involve the mixing of biofuels.

Fuel is a tricky subject, especially concerning biofuels. There are many misconceptions.

Diesel engines run extremely well on biofuel. Compared to conventional diesel fuel, biofuels are typically cleaner burning with less pollutants after sufficient straining. A good number of local drivers have set up collection services with local businesses to collect used oils; they strain and clean these oils, then use them to operate trucks. The only downside thus far is that people tend to get hungry when the truck beside them smells of French fries.

Gasoline is trickier. Diesel engines are slow, high-torque mechanisms, while gasoline engines are higher-speed and produce more horsepower than torque. Oil will not burn in a gasoline engine; it simply burns too slow. Alcohol from organic sources has been used to supplement gasoline, but even alcohol is not a great substitute. Alcohol burns faster than oil, but still a little slower than gasoline. Alcohol also produces more energy (heat) than gasoline, which can overload cooling systems.

For a purely gasoline engine to operate on alcohol, the timing must be retarded to allow for the slower burn speed, and the cooling system must have increased capacity to handle the extra heat. Modern engines are designed to handle a wider range of burn rates, which allow the use of gasoline/alcohol blends without problems. Computer control allows the timing to be continually adjusted to the proper point for maximum efficiency.

A side bit of trivia: the old caricatures of moonshiners hauling jugs of moonshine in the trunk were generally not typical of how illegal alcohol was transported. True moonshine is 200 proof pure. The cars used were modified with high-velocity water pumps and oversized radiators, and the alcohol was transported in oversized fuel tanks. Scrupulous 'shiners used new tanks exclusively and never introduced anything into them but alcohol. That was why they were hard to catch: yes, the motors were large, but they were also alcohol-burners a'la drag race cars today. The tank would be filled, they would drive to their customer, the tank would be siphoned (leaving enough fuel to return), and they would drive back.

Still, alcohol tends to 'water down' the efficiency of fuel in even flex engines. That's why most stations sell fuel with a maximum alcohol ratio of 10%. Alcohol for fuels is also primarily produced from food crops, like sugar cane or corn. The result is that we are 'burning our food,' creating less supply and higher prices for food in the process. There are non-food crops that can grow well in areas not suitable for food crops and produce good alcohol returns, but we have not yet transitioned to them. The reason? It's cheaper for companies to stay with present technology.

I would love to see subsidies used to get biofuel companies to develop non-food sources for alcohol.


posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 09:46 AM
a reply to: desert

"Climate change" is used by the fossil fuel industry to steer away from concerns over "pollution".

Actually, I see the other side as well. Concerns over carbon dioxide have taken center stage, overshadowing concerns over nitrates and sulfur. I do not doubt that some (even most) oil producers are happy to have attention to real pollution diverted, but it is the fervor with which governments have obsessed over carbon dioxide that has been the cause of the lack of attention to pollution.

I define pollution as any material which does not exist in similar proportions in the environment, and which has reasonable capacity to present a danger to ecological balances. Excessive nitrates fit that bill, as do almost all sulfur compounds. Carbon dioxide does not. It exists naturally as part of the CO2-O2 cycle, in quantities not far removed from present levels. The actual scientific research into Global Warming is concerned with comprehending the multiple feedbacks that drive atmospheric conditions. The models are improving, but are still incomplete. The reports of doom and gloom are typically assumptions from pop-sci sources that twist the intent of the present models to try and instill fear in the public.

Incidentally, there is a term for attempts to instill fear in the public: terrorism.

Politically, Global Warming is a very lucrative business. Carbon credits are issued by the government, producing an income. Like most limited permits, they will be bought by banks, who will then sell them to industry at a nice mark-up. This increased cost will be passed down to the consumer, resulting in higher energy costs. Higher energy costs will, as they always have, further slow the economy by raising costs. The winners will be the government's and brokers (banks), while the losers will be the poor trying to heat their home in the winter.

Science does not make political agendas; science researches and tries to understand phenomena and theories. Politics makes political agendas, and has a long history of using whatever means needed and available to get their way. Honesty and reality not required.


new topics

<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in