J
JP
Guest
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >The Sierra Club sued the EPA in February of 2003 for failing to update
> >its Clean Air standards as required by the Clean Air Act. After being
> >forced into a consent decree, the EPA released these rules. Gosh, did
> >you not know this? Very impressive.
>
> Gosh, did you not know they sued Clinton first (and will probably sue
> every other president eventually)?
>
> But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution
> reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure.
What act are you talking about? The rules you referenced were released
as required under the existing Clean Air Act. Nothing new there,
except for the rules that the Sierra Club forced the Bush
administration to revise.
> I think you just said exactly the same thing I did. If you can show
> me proof he made any real effort to push the thing through the Senate,
> I'll be surprised (I didn't find any evidence).
Probably not worth the effort- it would involve trying to pull news
articles out of archives. My memory is that I read some things in the
Washington Post (I'm a print subscriber) about the congressional
politics of Clinton trying to string together the votes, but maybe
Clinton just signed it for show, right? Bush *must* just be a more
environmentally friendly president than Clinton.
> >> Rightfully so, IMHO. So seldom can you
> >> get a unanimous decision out of the Senate that there should be no
> >> doubt that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea.
> >
> >The EU, Russia and Japan don't agree with you.
>
> What's your point?
For God's sake, that maybe the US Senate is not the last word on
whether Kyoto "is a really, really bad idea".
> Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
> cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
> at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
> (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
> that well-plowed land again.
Oh, brother.
The only thing more costly than taking steps to slow global warming is
not taking steps to slow global warming.
> >The economy is not roaring.
>
> I'd disagree - and from the looks of the leading indicators, it's
> going to do nothing but continue to improve.
See Paul Krugman ins today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html
> I posted figures - investment increased dramatically following the tax
> cuts.
What figures? From where?
> You gotta start updating that "jobs lost" number downward. ;-)
I already did. It takes into account the 900k gained since last
August. Again, see Krugman.
> Funny thing - the alternative Democrat budget didn't have any more
> funding for NCLB. But it's still the most expensive education act in
> history (and not "severely underfunded" IMHO - just not funded to the
> limits set up, as is the case with most bills). The NCLB, like most
> other things in this country - has become a politicized issue meaning
> that you're going to get mass hysteria from both sides. In the end,
> it's the only thing I've seen that's likely to actually improve the
> horrendously bad performance of our public schools.
It's a farce. It is severely underfunded because it does not do the
fundamental thing that is needed to improve our public schools:
provide money for teaching, as opposed to providing some (but not
enough, even) money for testing students. You want the students to
pass the tests, you gotta pay for the facilities and teachers they
need to learn. (Or you could just cheat, like they do in Texas.)
> I think we covered that pretty well. It was a broad based tax cut -
> top to bottom... what portion of the US taxpayers did it miss (other
> than - obviously - the large number who already didn't pay US federal
> income tax).
The large number who don't pay federal income tax nevertheless pay
Medicare and Social Security payroll tax. Their tax revenues are being
used to cover part of the deficit created by the Bush taxcuts. In
other words, those payroll taxes are being used as general tax revenue
by the government. Why shouldn't they be entitled to a taxcut as well?
> >Amazing to what degree the Bush administration depends on character
> >assisnation to defend its policies.
>
> Right... exposing the fallacies presented in O'Neill's and Clarke's
> books is "character assassination". Both of these guys were demoted
> of fired under the Bush presidency. Both made a lot of money writing
> a Bush-bashing book.
O'Neill did not write a book, he gave extensive interview; and he was
already incredibly wealthy. It strains credulity to suggest that he
criticized the policy-making process in the Bush White House for the
money.
Clarke, well, yes you're right. In reality, Bush, after being informed
by his national security advisors that an attack on the US by
terrorists was imminent, cancelled the remainder of his month-long
vacation at Crawford and rushed back to Washington, where he brow beat
the members of his cabinet into piecing together the intelligence they
had that would anticipate the the 9/11 hijackings. Thanks to Bush's
strong leadership, the terrible tragedy that would have taken place on
9/11 was avoided. Clarke is just a liar, out for a quick buck.
> >> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
> >> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all. A single parent of
> >> two making $20,000 a year is $750 ahead,
> >
> >Only if they were already paying $750 in taxes, which they probably
> >weren't.
>
> How else are they going to get $750 ahead via the tax cut?
Give them a refund on their Social Security Tax.
> >Those 4 million people you're talking about are still paying
> >taxes- Medicare and Social Security, and their taxes are going to pay
> >for payments to current retirees and they're going to cover the
> >federal deficit so that Bush can give out his big taxcuts to the
> >ultrawealthy and still pretend that the deficit is *only* half a
> >trillion.
>
> What's your point? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only around 4% of
> the total US federal income taxes. How much less can they pay?
They pay a lot more than 4% federal income taxes. Just because you
refuse to admit that Social Security and Medicare taxes are income
taxes does not mean that they are not. Social Security and Medicare
taxes ARE federal income taxes.
But I'm not even saying that they should pay less; I'm saying that the
top 2% should pay more. Those people making a quarter of a million a
year under the old tax rates were actually living pretty comfortably.
I think they'll survive. Probably won't even have to cut back on their
maid service.
> >> The "flow of jobs" out of the US has remained relatively constant for
> >> many, many years.
> >
> >And it's been a problem for many, many years. It has caused
> >fundamental, negative changes in US society.
>
> I'm not so convinced that's it's quite the crisis it's "grown into"
> during the current political silly season.
It has been a crisis for at least three decades. It gets attention
every election. Remember Perot?
> >The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
> >white collar jobs. When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
> >they be retrained for? Perhaps as a "food service worker"?
>
> I'm a bit more global in my outlook than most I suppose (having lived
> overseas in several countries). Ultimately creating opportunity in
> other countries isn't a bad thing.
I have lived overseas in a couple of countries, and have a pretty
global outlook myself. But let's be clear: the opportunity that is
being created is at the expense of American workers. If I extrapolate
this trend to its limit, I see an averaging of income and standards of
living between US workers and the Third World. I would prefer to see
opportunity created in Third World countries as a function of their
improving standards of living, rather than as a function of the
deterioration of ours.
> >> (much as a 5.7% unemployment rate was a shining
> >> indicator example of Clinton's economy in 1996 but an indicator of a
> >> total disaster for the American worker in 2004).
> >
> >There is no comparison between the economic conditions in 1996 and
> >now. At that time employment was improving- it had been adding jobs
> >for most of the last three years, the economy had been growing for
> >three years and the deficit was trending toward a surplus in the near
> >future. Those were the days.
> >
> >Please don't try to tell us that things are as good now as they were
> >in '96. We know better, and it makes you look like a liar.
>
> Those were the days all right - but they were being artificially
> bolstered by the dot-com bubble.
There was not a significant bubble in 96.
> The market was priced beyond all
> reason, and it had to come to an end because there was simply nothing
> to back up the capitalization. The bubble popped and we were in a
> full-blown recession by the third month of the GWB presidency (which
> is really just a continuation of the trend from the previous year).
>
> The bottom line is - 5.7% unemployment is NOT a historically high
> figure. If you buy into the media frenzy - that's your choice.
This is not a media frenzy. It is people knowing what their wage
growth is, and what their job mobility is, and how hard it would be to
find another equivalent paying job if they lost the one they have. You
can sit there and try to tell us different until hell freezes over,
but it ain't gonna change what we know.
> It's
> just that a dispassionate examination of the reality shows that it's
> lower than the average of the past several decades (and it's
> decreasing from that level).
Oh, I guess if you insist hard enough that everything is all right,
then it must be. I mean, you apply for a job in a place as miserable
as Iraq is right now, and, even though you are very well qualified,
you can't get hired. Yep, the job market's pretty tight, alright.
JP
> >The Sierra Club sued the EPA in February of 2003 for failing to update
> >its Clean Air standards as required by the Clean Air Act. After being
> >forced into a consent decree, the EPA released these rules. Gosh, did
> >you not know this? Very impressive.
>
> Gosh, did you not know they sued Clinton first (and will probably sue
> every other president eventually)?
>
> But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution
> reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure.
What act are you talking about? The rules you referenced were released
as required under the existing Clean Air Act. Nothing new there,
except for the rules that the Sierra Club forced the Bush
administration to revise.
> I think you just said exactly the same thing I did. If you can show
> me proof he made any real effort to push the thing through the Senate,
> I'll be surprised (I didn't find any evidence).
Probably not worth the effort- it would involve trying to pull news
articles out of archives. My memory is that I read some things in the
Washington Post (I'm a print subscriber) about the congressional
politics of Clinton trying to string together the votes, but maybe
Clinton just signed it for show, right? Bush *must* just be a more
environmentally friendly president than Clinton.
> >> Rightfully so, IMHO. So seldom can you
> >> get a unanimous decision out of the Senate that there should be no
> >> doubt that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea.
> >
> >The EU, Russia and Japan don't agree with you.
>
> What's your point?
For God's sake, that maybe the US Senate is not the last word on
whether Kyoto "is a really, really bad idea".
> Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
> cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
> at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
> (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
> that well-plowed land again.
Oh, brother.
The only thing more costly than taking steps to slow global warming is
not taking steps to slow global warming.
> >The economy is not roaring.
>
> I'd disagree - and from the looks of the leading indicators, it's
> going to do nothing but continue to improve.
See Paul Krugman ins today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html
> I posted figures - investment increased dramatically following the tax
> cuts.
What figures? From where?
> You gotta start updating that "jobs lost" number downward. ;-)
I already did. It takes into account the 900k gained since last
August. Again, see Krugman.
> Funny thing - the alternative Democrat budget didn't have any more
> funding for NCLB. But it's still the most expensive education act in
> history (and not "severely underfunded" IMHO - just not funded to the
> limits set up, as is the case with most bills). The NCLB, like most
> other things in this country - has become a politicized issue meaning
> that you're going to get mass hysteria from both sides. In the end,
> it's the only thing I've seen that's likely to actually improve the
> horrendously bad performance of our public schools.
It's a farce. It is severely underfunded because it does not do the
fundamental thing that is needed to improve our public schools:
provide money for teaching, as opposed to providing some (but not
enough, even) money for testing students. You want the students to
pass the tests, you gotta pay for the facilities and teachers they
need to learn. (Or you could just cheat, like they do in Texas.)
> I think we covered that pretty well. It was a broad based tax cut -
> top to bottom... what portion of the US taxpayers did it miss (other
> than - obviously - the large number who already didn't pay US federal
> income tax).
The large number who don't pay federal income tax nevertheless pay
Medicare and Social Security payroll tax. Their tax revenues are being
used to cover part of the deficit created by the Bush taxcuts. In
other words, those payroll taxes are being used as general tax revenue
by the government. Why shouldn't they be entitled to a taxcut as well?
> >Amazing to what degree the Bush administration depends on character
> >assisnation to defend its policies.
>
> Right... exposing the fallacies presented in O'Neill's and Clarke's
> books is "character assassination". Both of these guys were demoted
> of fired under the Bush presidency. Both made a lot of money writing
> a Bush-bashing book.
O'Neill did not write a book, he gave extensive interview; and he was
already incredibly wealthy. It strains credulity to suggest that he
criticized the policy-making process in the Bush White House for the
money.
Clarke, well, yes you're right. In reality, Bush, after being informed
by his national security advisors that an attack on the US by
terrorists was imminent, cancelled the remainder of his month-long
vacation at Crawford and rushed back to Washington, where he brow beat
the members of his cabinet into piecing together the intelligence they
had that would anticipate the the 9/11 hijackings. Thanks to Bush's
strong leadership, the terrible tragedy that would have taken place on
9/11 was avoided. Clarke is just a liar, out for a quick buck.
> >> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
> >> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all. A single parent of
> >> two making $20,000 a year is $750 ahead,
> >
> >Only if they were already paying $750 in taxes, which they probably
> >weren't.
>
> How else are they going to get $750 ahead via the tax cut?
Give them a refund on their Social Security Tax.
> >Those 4 million people you're talking about are still paying
> >taxes- Medicare and Social Security, and their taxes are going to pay
> >for payments to current retirees and they're going to cover the
> >federal deficit so that Bush can give out his big taxcuts to the
> >ultrawealthy and still pretend that the deficit is *only* half a
> >trillion.
>
> What's your point? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only around 4% of
> the total US federal income taxes. How much less can they pay?
They pay a lot more than 4% federal income taxes. Just because you
refuse to admit that Social Security and Medicare taxes are income
taxes does not mean that they are not. Social Security and Medicare
taxes ARE federal income taxes.
But I'm not even saying that they should pay less; I'm saying that the
top 2% should pay more. Those people making a quarter of a million a
year under the old tax rates were actually living pretty comfortably.
I think they'll survive. Probably won't even have to cut back on their
maid service.
> >> The "flow of jobs" out of the US has remained relatively constant for
> >> many, many years.
> >
> >And it's been a problem for many, many years. It has caused
> >fundamental, negative changes in US society.
>
> I'm not so convinced that's it's quite the crisis it's "grown into"
> during the current political silly season.
It has been a crisis for at least three decades. It gets attention
every election. Remember Perot?
> >The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
> >white collar jobs. When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
> >they be retrained for? Perhaps as a "food service worker"?
>
> I'm a bit more global in my outlook than most I suppose (having lived
> overseas in several countries). Ultimately creating opportunity in
> other countries isn't a bad thing.
I have lived overseas in a couple of countries, and have a pretty
global outlook myself. But let's be clear: the opportunity that is
being created is at the expense of American workers. If I extrapolate
this trend to its limit, I see an averaging of income and standards of
living between US workers and the Third World. I would prefer to see
opportunity created in Third World countries as a function of their
improving standards of living, rather than as a function of the
deterioration of ours.
> >> (much as a 5.7% unemployment rate was a shining
> >> indicator example of Clinton's economy in 1996 but an indicator of a
> >> total disaster for the American worker in 2004).
> >
> >There is no comparison between the economic conditions in 1996 and
> >now. At that time employment was improving- it had been adding jobs
> >for most of the last three years, the economy had been growing for
> >three years and the deficit was trending toward a surplus in the near
> >future. Those were the days.
> >
> >Please don't try to tell us that things are as good now as they were
> >in '96. We know better, and it makes you look like a liar.
>
> Those were the days all right - but they were being artificially
> bolstered by the dot-com bubble.
There was not a significant bubble in 96.
> The market was priced beyond all
> reason, and it had to come to an end because there was simply nothing
> to back up the capitalization. The bubble popped and we were in a
> full-blown recession by the third month of the GWB presidency (which
> is really just a continuation of the trend from the previous year).
>
> The bottom line is - 5.7% unemployment is NOT a historically high
> figure. If you buy into the media frenzy - that's your choice.
This is not a media frenzy. It is people knowing what their wage
growth is, and what their job mobility is, and how hard it would be to
find another equivalent paying job if they lost the one they have. You
can sit there and try to tell us different until hell freezes over,
but it ain't gonna change what we know.
> It's
> just that a dispassionate examination of the reality shows that it's
> lower than the average of the past several decades (and it's
> decreasing from that level).
Oh, I guess if you insist hard enough that everything is all right,
then it must be. I mean, you apply for a job in a place as miserable
as Iraq is right now, and, even though you are very well qualified,
you can't get hired. Yep, the job market's pretty tight, alright.
JP
