Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!
 

At the same time. Like "Saw X in Washington" mashed up with a circus clown.

But the flim-flam political lies have come down to the "brass tacks", and with the fiscal cliff approaching, we can see how earnest the Democrats REALLY are about cutting the government spending.

Will Obama and the Democrats cut current spending by 10%? NO.

Will Obama and the Democrats cut current spending by 5%? NO.

Will Obama and the Democrats cut current spending by even 1%? NO.

What Obama and the Democrats WILL do is immediately raise taxes - on the rich most conspicuously, but also on the middle class - when you're not looking of course. And it won't be called a tax, it will be called a "fee", a "levy", or some other friendlier euphemism.

We have a new game: Catch the euphemisms for "new taxes"! I said it was going to be fun! :rolleyes:

After taxes are raised, Obama and the Democrats will cut PROJECTED FUTURE SPENDING - which is so horridly out of balance with income that not one democrat will support it, and why Obama and the democrats have never passed a budget (except Bush's budget, in the first year of Obama's first term).

So our deficit will continue to climb - up, up, and away!

What fun! :rolleyes:

We've gone from a nation that loves our freedom, to a nation that loves the free $TUFF, from our government.

Our childhood dreams are being realized, though - there IS a real Santa Clause who brings us all kinds of free gift$: The Democratic Party.

Fun! Fun! Fun!

Welcome back!

I would only suggest that the GOP also lacks credibility in the deficit department, so its in the interest of the stupidly criminal party to work with the criminally stupid party to get a balanced approach underway near-term.

Adak - got any recipes you want to share?

I'm waiting for you to explain the Mayan calender ending on Dec 21st as them knowing the world was coming to an end because Obama would be reelected.

We're in this mess because taxes were cut below any kind of sustainable level while we ran two wars for a decade. Now that the bill has come due, the only suggestions from the party that was mostly responsible is to double down on the unsustainable tax cuts.

There will be spending cuts, but there also needs to be revenue. The periods of US history with the highest tax rates also enjoyed the highest growth because tax policy encouraged tying up capital in enterprise. The 'trickle down' theory has not worked because tax savings trickle into offshore investments or exotic restructured financial products that are essentially financial masturbation - providing the illusion without actually producing anything.

Anyone who believes that American freedoms are being threatened because someones tax bracket is being adjusted up %4 is gullible. Anyone who states this without actually believing it is a lawyer, politician, or lobbyist.

Hey, Adak. Welcome back! We were worried we wouldn't see you again now that Obama won both the electoral college and the POPULAR vote for President. :p:

OK, now that the civilities are over...

Also, we can see how earnest the Republicans REALLY are about not cutting the taxes for anyone but a prviiledged few. The upper 2% or else the hell with everyone else.

Will Grover Norquist and the Tea Party modify the tax code to bring in more revenue to help decrease the deficit by even so much as .000001% ? NO

Will Grover Norquist and the whacko Republican extremists modify the tax code to help reduce the deficit by even so much as .0000005%? NO

Will Grover Norquist and his gang of Republicans feeding from the Corporate trough raise revenues by even .000000000000001% ? NO

What Grover Norquist and the Republicans will do is immediately cut Medicare and Medicaid, cut disability payments for vets injured in our on-going and numerous wars, and take food from the mouths of hungry children by eliminating the SNAP program. They'll do this when we're not looking of course by their continued refusal to make public their desired cuts to federally funded programs. And it won't be called destroying the social contract - it will be called encouraging the "job creators."

We have a new game: Catch the euphemisms for further enriching the wealthiest few and creating a more plutocratic society with the passing of each day.

The Republicans will continue to assure that deficit remains so horridly out of balance by their continued refusal to NEVER give a nanometer and their view of "compromise" as a 4 letter word.

Our childhood nightmares are coming true because, yes Virginia, there is a Scroodge. And he is embodied by the Republican party. The Republicans are quite willing to send us all over the fiscal cliff; increase taxes on EVERYONE; send the economy into a fresh tailspin; watch unemployment rise to new highs; turn children, low income seniors, and the disabled out on the streets - no sacrifice to great for the rest of us if only the upper 2% get their way.

Merry Christmas, everyone. And the Republicans also have a gift for us all - a stocking filled with coal.

BAH, HUMBUG!

COAL??? That's damn fossil carbon. Bloody eco-vandals.

Hiya Adak, post about some non-political interests sometimes ... if you have any. ;)

But - but *sputters* the Republicans LOVE coal! The only thing they love more is oil. We should be honored that the Republicans want to make us gifts of coal. The only thing better than coal and oil is oil shale . It combines the best of both coal and oil with the added benefits of strip mining - coming soon to a National Forest or Park near you. Well, not YOU, Zen since you're an Aussie, but all the rest of us in the only real country in the world.

Gee, now I'm feeling really bad for everybody who doesn't live in the good old US of A and won't get the gift of oil shale or coal or anything. Tell you what since it's the $-mas season. Y'all can pm me with your shipping address and I'll send you a piece of oil shale for your stockings. I'm sure my local Forest Service Office won't mind if I shop early and beat the Robber Baron rush. :thumb:

@Recipies? Might be a good distraction eh?

@Griff and @SamIam: Thanks for the welcome back.

@SamIam: In fracking, you bore a hole VERY deep (way past any ground water), and then you can bore horizontally, wherever you want to go, to get to the shale that has the oil, and fracture it.

There is NO strip mining!

It's like a hole for a water well, but much deeper. Everything else is hundreds to thousands of feet below the surface, and you see nothing of it.

Obama was bound to win - everybody loves $anta Claus! And he's "cool", and he's an idiot who can't run a lemonade stand in the hot Summer, with free lemons and water.

But he's cool, and he's got us on the dole - for jobs, for assistance of all types. Thanks to his economic policy duds, we've got more people on welfare than ever, in our history.

And he's promised us everything, if we just tax the rich. ;)

What a load of horse shit! But we're going to call it FUN fertilizer, don't ya know! :rolleyes:

Actual budget cuts offered by Obama and the Democrats so far: 0.00%

The tax code can't be changed unless the democrats approve it (which they won't), so no, the tax code can't be changed, atm. Norquist is an influential lobbyist, and on the Council on Foreign Relations, but has no vote in Congress, for either party. So he's out of the picture for any actual bill writing.

I tend to agree with Richlevy: some tax increases will be needed, but spending cuts should be 100 X as much - it's totally out of whack with Obama.

Drunken sailors could learn how to spend their money faster, by watching Obama.

You can drain the rich until they're wearing rain barrels - it won't cut the deficit one penney - because our projected spending deficit exceeds every cent that all the rich guys in the country are worth, all together.

You flunked arithmetic?

THAT's the big elephant in our living room, and I agree completely with Richlevy - we've had two wars + the extensive air campaign over Libya - and you can't do that without raising taxes.

My other interests are programming and helping out with Folding@Home and other computer assisted efforts to help cure diseases.

I'm #19 on my team, and #389 on the entire Folding@Home project.
http://folding.extremeoverclocking.c...=169140#169140

Anybody read about the tax loophole that Starbucks and other multinationals are using to avoid ALL federal taxes in the UK?

Shows we don't have the only brain dead tax policies. :D

@SamIam: Trust me, you don't know what a "Scrooge" is, until you've seen a full on monetary crisis. It would make our fiscal cliff look like cheesecake, with our favorite ice cream. THAT is what the forced fiscal cliff, is meant to avoid - and it had better work, if it's needed.

well said adak. well said

What is that I don't even

Adak, here's reality

How to lie with statistics.

Obama has increased spending less than other presidents, and way less than Republican presidents. True

Obama is spending more than any other president in history. True

These statements seem contrary, and a partisan will look only at the one that supports their team. But they are both true. If Bush spent x, and Obama increased spending even very slightly, then Obama is spending x + y, which is greater than x.

My way of thinking is to look at a household for an analogy. You are supposed to save money during the good times so you have a nest egg to get you through the bad times. We had good times under Clinton and were starting to save money, but Bush came in and stopped the saving of money and spent money like crazy instead. Then bad times came. And now Obama needs to spend money to get us through the bad times, but there is no money to spend because Bush already spent it during the good times. So Obama needs to spend money that doesn't exist. Not a very good situation to be in. But if you don't spend the money in bad times, the bad times will get even worse. And if you spend money that you don't have for too long, then the bad times will also get worse. Deficits do matter. I place the current problems directly at the feet of Bush. But so what? What do we do now? I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure that we need to get money into the hands of consumers. Consumers drive the economy. Rich people do NOT drive the economy. Consumer demand created jobs. Small business monetary holdings do not create jobs.

On the other hand, the deficit is falling pretty fast right about now as revenues are increasing.

FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2012: $1,089 billion
FY 2013*: $901 billion

Can I get an AMEN?!

All those senior citizens with their social security spend that money...on food and medicine and doctors and travel, etc.

Get money into people's pockets and they will spend it. On food, travel, housing, clothing, entertainment, investments, houses, cars, etc.

That spending increases demand on businesses, which allows them to expand and create jobs to hire more people.

This, then, inflates the value of the businesses and translates to increased dividend and stock values. More revenue/net income = more taxes to the government. Not necessarily a higher tax rate, more OF the current taxes.

Everyone benefits. All the way to the top. And sideways through the federal and state government(s).

If you're playing fair and not being greedy and near-sighted, that is.

However, if your purpose is to milk as much cash from whomever and stash that money overseas in a tax haven, or run shady/shaky investment deals and get it done before anyone catches on or regulates it, then doing it the slow way, from the ground up won't work for you.

Corporate profits are at an all time high. If you are one of those people reaping the benefits of this, you sure as hell don't want that to change. Paying employees more or giving better benefits would cut into your profits! OMG! (Dumbasses don't even think beyond the end of their pointed little noses...err...wallets).

So go for the spending cuts on the backs of the poor people, the disabled, the elderly, our children...because they have no power or influence and there are no instant profits to be had from helping them survive. Plenty of long term benefits, but too many people have bought the fairy tale that we must CUT CUT CUT NOW NOW NOW or tomorrow the world will end. They aren't even willing to consider that they might be wrong.

And maybe more people should research how the economy actually works before they start bleating about what should be done with it. :yelgreedy

Thank you. The decrease in revenue due to the Recession played a major role in the increasing deficit during 2007 - 2009.

I don't like all these coherent posts without color coding. :mad:



;)

Ha! Glad you asked, IM!

Folding@Home is a HUGE distributed computing project, run by Stanford University. It's purpose is to research how our proteins (that's the part of us that DOES the most stuff!), build themselves into these complex 3 dimensional shapes.

If the "build" goes bad, it's big-time trouble for us - like a key that not only doesn't open the lock, but might even break it.

It also studies how diseases get into our cells, at the molecular level, and finds the most likely candidates for effective drugs to treat diseases. We've done projects for Huntington's Disease, Alzheimer's, Cancer (helped lower the toxicity of a breast cancer drug to normal cells), Leukemia, etc.

Taken together, Folding@Home is the most powerful super computer in the world - by far.

My team is Overclockers.com (there are thousands of teams, and we are #4 in the world). This is the video from our leader of F@H, Dr. Vijay Pande: (he's interviewed by a DLTV member).

The video of the protein folding, is amazing!

http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Learn

( team DLTV - hah! ) :p:

Note: This is NOT for laptops or tablets. In moderate use, you won't notice F@Home is even running, if you have good cooling for your PC.

The F@Home client runs in lowest priority, so everything you want to do, it yields cpu cycles to you (even to the screensavers). Takes 1/3rd of a second to do that.

For heavy gaming - turn it off (click the quit button in the app). Restart it later.

Follow the way of a Republican household:

Don't use the check register to list all the checks you write.
... no list, it didn't happen.

When you move out, burn all the NSF notices and don't mention the lien on the property.

Then squawk like a male peacock when the next owner has to pay your debts.

Yay, UT posted in the politics forum!

Are you alluding to the way Obama screwed the bond holders of GM when he took it over - contrary to law, btw.

Or are you referring to how Obama screwed the taxpayers over to the tune of half a million dollars by OK'ing the loan to his crony friends in setting up a solar energy company that had already been labelled "risky", by the executive branch?

It's SO hard to keep track of all the way that the Democrats have wasted SO many millions of dollars.

We're NOT going to cut back on our spending and get through this recession, and come out stronger in a year or two -- oh no, by Gawd!

We're going to keep up -- no! EXPAND our spending, by hundreds of millions of dollars, and do NOTHING to make our economy more efficient - like say by using E-verify??

No, we have our recession, and we are, BY GAWD! Going to WALLOW in it, and sing Al Green imitations, and play golf, and hoops, and go on more talk shows, and lie some more!

Oh Hooray!! :rolleyes:

This post brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
 

Lamplighter,

All peacocks are male. All peahens are female.

That is all.

Good to see you again Adak. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving holiday. I'd like to offer my hand to you in post-election-goodwill and say "good contest". I have a request/suggestion for this next phase of political discussion here. Would you please omit the ad hominem attacks and the playground name-calling? I pledge to do the same.

I respectfully ask this of you because it will optimize our efforts toward what is undoubtedly our *shared* goal, discussing and deciding what is best for *our country* and how to get there. I freely admit there's likely more overlap on the former than the latter--but they are equally important. I value your input, but it's very difficult, for me, to extract your ideas which deserve consideration from your incendiary rhetoric which distracts.

Thank you. :)

V, yes, of course :)

a typical adekian response...



Did you see what I did there... a new word entered my vocabulary ;)

I don't mean to turn this thread into an expose' of environmental crimes now being committed in the American West, and I'll try not to turn my reply into something nobody else but tw can understand. But your statements are so completely wrong that I can't let them go unchallenged. I live here and it's happening to the mountains and back country plateaus that I love. It breaks my heart and I have VERY strong feelings about it.

You obviously know nothing about current oil shale and natural gas extraction methods in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Fracking is used to extract natural gas, not oil shale. Fracking often leads to the pollution of ground water with methane. As a result of this contamination, some communities in my part of the world - Colorado's Western Slope - have tap water that can actually be set on fire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQMA0zwMM4



Out here, burning water is like burning $100 dollar bills. Water is a precious commodity in this land of little rain. It's bad enough that the energy companies come in and contaminate our water supplies, but the crime is compounded when outfits like Halliburten and Shell steal our water completely. Farmers and ranchers are being driven out of business because they can no longer afford the high costs of water rights - a price skyrocketing thanks to drought and energy exploitation methods.

That's just a few of the evils of fracking natural gas.

There is nothing responsible or sustainable about oil shale either. The process of extracting oil shale is similar to tar sands. The land is strip mined, then the oil is baked out of the rock by heating it to high temperatures. This is a process that destroys the land, uses massive amounts of water, and uses massive amounts of energy.

You'll be pleased to hear that this is one area where the Obama administration is in bed with the big oil and energy corporations. Obama's decision to allow big energy to pillage our public lands is worthy of Republicans like James Watt and Dick Cheney. While I supported Obama in the election, he was merely the lesser of two evils. I and other Western environmentalists are fighting a losing battle to keep our backyards from becoming slag pits.

The first two pix that follow are of my beloved Uncomphaghre Plateau - two hours drive to the north of me. It's spectacular and one of Colorado's best kept secrets. Few tourists venture up there and I usually have the entire Uncomphaghre to myself when I go there - or so it feels. The Uncomphaghre is also a rich source of oil shale and falls under the Bureau of Land mis-Management (BLM). Obama is turning BLM lands into national sacrifice areas in the quest for so-called alternative energy sources.

Pix three and four are of shale debris and a shale strip mine, respectively. Obama wants to delete pix one and two and replace them with pix three and four.

Y'all can go back to the budget thing now. I think I'll go outside and look at the mountains for a while. :(

[quote=SamIam;841615]I don't mean to turn this thread into an expose' of environmental crimes now being committed in the American West, and I'll try not to turn my reply into something nobody else but tw can understand. But your statements are so completely wrong that I can't let them go unchallenged. I live here and it's happening to the mountains and back country plateaus that I love. It breaks my heart and I have VERY strong feelings about it.

You obviously know nothing about current oil shale and natural gas extraction methods in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Fracking is used to extract natural gas, not oil shale. [quote]


Stop! I live in the American Southwest, and fracking also allows access to oil that is in shale - it's not just natural gas (although there is a lot of that gas, as well, and natural gas burns VERY clean).

Your "burning water" was investigated (that was in Pennsylvania, btw), and found to be a contamination by above ground mishandling and contamination -- had NOTHING to do with fracking. You can't contaminate with fracking because they're working FAR deeper than ground water, UNLESS your well casings and pipes BOTH crack and leak, AND are passing through an area with groundwater.

The gov't has checked this out, (they wanted to stop it), and found that they could not, because there was NO evidence it contaminated ANYTHING. I will add that there is of course, SOME risk in doing ANYTHING - in the environment, or just crossing the street.

Yes, this was checked out - above ground contamination, by poor handling of wastes. Had nothing to do with fracking.

So now companies are to blame because costs are rising in the marketplace, for a scarce supply of water?

I cringe at your lack of understanding of supply and demand. Do you believe these companies can help that? They would LOVE to pay low prices for the water they need.

Shale mining IS strip mining, AFAIK, but I'm not very knowledgeable about shale mining. It's completely wrong to group Fracking, with Shale Mining. The former is like drilling a well. The latter is like tearing the shit out of everything on the surface, and working with the shale, below it, directly, with huge mining equipment.

Actually, Obama has blocked a lot of oil projects, on Federal lands.


What's so "alternative" about strip mining for oil, from shale? I don't get the "alternative" description here. Looks like same-ol' stuff to me.

Oh there's no doubt that strip mining is about the only thing worse than clear cutting a huge forest - it destroys everything. What's the plan to restore the area's being mined, when they're done working with the shale? That's what I'd like to see. I don't believe you can stop strip mining, in area's rich in deposits. You CAN and SHOULD insist that the area be returned to something akin to it's former state though, when they are done.

We do need the energy - that's critical, but we don't need to strip mine and then leave the area a slag dump.

Yes, it will not be the same for a hundred years, but it should be enjoyable, and be slowly returned to it's former beauty, as large trees grow in, etc. That will only happen if it gets worked into shape with the slag put back below the level of supporting top and secondary soil. If the slag stays at or very close to the surface, then nothing good will ever grow there. All plants depend on the micro organisms and micro nutrients in soil - and that is not present in slag.

All Good Medicine.

Who is YOU, and doesn't that involve "regulation"

OF COURSE the answer should be the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Department of Energy, or some combination of both. To rely on "self regulation" will never work, and would indeed be illegal.

I meant that there are regulations - we regulate everything nowadays, but those who are there - locally - are the only ones who know if the regulations, are actually being followed.

Yup. I agree with all three points.

Apparently, the makers of "Gasland" actually knew the entire 'setting tap water on fire from fracking' thing was bullshit but they decided to go through with it anyways.


Also agree.

It is a pleasure to have another person from my part of the world on the board. I would be curious to know which Southwestern state if you'd feel comfortable sharing that information with us.

I'm going to preface the rest of my remarks with the following:

I did not intend for my little joke about oil shale (it's better to laugh than to cry) to become a springboard for a discussion which must encompass the fields of geology, climatology, plant physiology, mining and Western history to name only a few.

I once worked at a college library that had a 500,000 volume collection on these very subjects. And even at that, I managed to read only 499,999 of them. ;)

Never mind the length a proper reply would entail, I don't feel the Cellar -as great as it is and as intelligent as its members are - is the appropriate forum for what would constitute a highly technical and scientific discussion. Therefore, I am only to make a few remarks in response to your post. OK, a COUPLE of few.

A number of methods are used to extract oil shale - a sort of fracking is one of them, true. However, what most people know about fracking is in relation to natural gas extraction. There are significant differences between "fracking" oil shale versus fracking natural gas. In addition, given our current technology, strip mining and extraction of petroleum via a high temperature process remains the preferred technique. This is called "retorting." You are correct in stating that natural gas is a clean fuel to burn. However, it is not always a clean fuel to extract.

PA shares the dubious honor along with Colorado and a number of other states of having regions where the inhabitants can perform the burning water trick. Youtube has endless videos of people from all over the US burning their tap water.

Whatever source you found that states fracking has nothing to do with methane in the near-by area water supply is either out-of-date, or dismissive of science in the manner of many right wing outfits, or both.

In April of 2011, the peer reviewed publication of the American Academy of Science included a research paper describing “a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.”

Even the scientists who conducted the research were surprised at the strength of correlation.

As Tonto would say,"They who, white boy?" From the Bush administration to the present, the Federal government, far from attempting to prohibit fracking, has gone out of its way to encourage it.

By contrast, research conducted at the behest of state and local governments has shown definate evidence of contamination and a host of other problems that result from fracking. See for example, the report issued by Garfield County containing an exhaustive examination of the methane problem on Colorado's Western Slope:

*pause to go out and breathe a little clean night air while I still can*

I agree, but I might also add that a wise pedestrian looks both ways and makes sure the street is clear of traffic. Only a fool steps out in front of a speeding truck. We, as a society, have hopped right in front of an oncoming environmental freight train.

Oh, come on. Ignoring common sense is not the way to win a debate. One hundred people demand a commodity in scarce supply offered by the market place. Suddenly, ten huge corporations step in and up the bidding. The corporations would love to pay less, but they determine that procurring the commodity even at a high price will help result in a fantastic profit. They up the bidding, secure the commodity for themselves and make a killing. Yes, the companies have helped up the price of water. Don't tell me you're a Republican who can't figure out the free market. :rolleyes:

:smack:

Sure, and I also could insist that I be given the ability to turn straw into gold for all the good that would do for me.

I honestly appreciate your final comments here, Adak - I really do. You seem to have done a little reading and you don't come across as wanting an environmental wasteland any more than I do.

However - and here about 49,000 volumes from that library above beg to be read. It is not that easy. Let's say the mining companies actually agreed to pay the astronomical cost that restoring even just one strip mined mountain would entail. Never mind that in the entire history of mining in the American West, no mineral extraction outfit has ever paid anything near the cost of the damage to the environment it has incurred. Never mind any of the past terrible mining related damage that even a casual observer will notice in amost any river drainage around here. Let's write costs off completely and give every single energy company CEO a PhD in ecology and an attitude of deep contrition for the havoc he has helped wreck on the land. Let's make all those highly unlikely things be true.

Colorado and the rest of the Inter mountain West will still never recover from what will amount to decade after decade of strip mining and other types of energy exploitation.

Remember those beautiful aspen in my first pic a way back? Well, those trees along with the spruce and the pinyon and the Doug fir and all the others are already dead. They just don't know it yet.

Notice how dry it's been out here? And it's been dry for quite a while now, come to think of it. And hasn't this been one of the warmest summers and falls ever? Sure has in MY part of the Southwest, anyhow.

Forests in the Inter Mountain West are already suffering from an ecological three strikes and out - climate change, fire suppression carried out like a slap in the face to all known forestry and ecological science, and an incredible outbreak - epidemic, really - of pine beetle and other destructive insects.

Even the pinyon trees are dying and the pinyon has got to be one of the toughest, hardiest tree species out here. I never thought I'd see acre after acre of dead pinyon pines. But all I have to do is drive about 40 or 50 miles north of here and take a look around the aptly named Disappointment Valley and there they are.

Or were.

The first time I realized that even the pinyons were dying, I felt frightened. I still do.

We should be doing everything we can to protect and nurture our Inter-Mountain Western forests - as well as soils. We might possibly be able to preserve this precious national heritage, although the odds are increasingly against it.

Strip mining will be the final blow. The forest will never return.

Now, if you are like many of the other Republicans I've encountered, you probably don't "believe" in climate change or global warming. Or maybe you do. Whatever. I don't argue the subject with scientific atheists anymore. There's a zillion post thread about global warming around here somewhere. Read it if you want. Or look out your window at the dead pinyons.

I've typed you just about the longest response to a post that I can ever remember giving someone here. If you don't agree with my reasoning and don't bother to study any of the reputable links written for the scientific lay person that I've provided, that's your choice. I've already given you an ample response and I'm finished.

I wish like anything that your replies to my earlier post were correct. Unfortunately, they're not.

Have a nice evening or a pleasant morning.

.

:rotflol:

*wipes tears out of eyes*

Oh, my! I don't mean to make fun, but your response just struck me as so INNOCENT! Maybe you were being sarcastic?

I've been fortunate enough to visit the Pacific Northwest more than once, and I even lived in northern Idaho right on its border with Washington State for a year. Oh, how I'd love to see the ocean again!

Anyhow, the people who reside in the PNW have always struck me as far more liberal and far more envionmentally aware then the ranchers and farmers and the rest of the the population of Colorado's Western Slope.

I bet YOU guys demand that the EPA carry out its designated functions in your states. Well, good luck with that. Out here, we shoot first and ask questions later.

That leaves the nice fellow from the DOE. He shakes everyone's hand and winks a couple of times and helps throw parades for Halliburten or Shell in every small town on the Colorado Plateau.

The people of Naturita and Nucla are dying (literally) to get their uranium mining back. While they're waiting, the DOE goes out and puts warning signs with a big radiation symbol on them around the oddly deep blue old uranium settling and tailings containment ponds.

I used to have a priceless picture of a couple of cows drinking water from one of those ponds - radiation warning sign in full view - in the background was a dead, bloated cow - four legs in the air.

BEEF! It's what makes America glow in the dark!

All humor aside, much the same arguments as those made by Adak helped the gas drilling industry in Colorado win rare exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act when Congress enacted the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

The Energy Policy Act is to the EPA as the Patriot Act is to the Constitution.

Alas, nothing to actually laugh about.

I agree. This situation is just now being taken up by the US Supreme Court.

The article below is primarily the lawyers wrangling over judicial procedures,
but one paragraph describes up the real-world situation....


NY Times
ADAM LIPTAK
12/3/12

E.P.A. Rule Complicates Runoff Case for Justices

I'm in Southern California.

If it doesn't use a deep bore and involve fracturing the underground rock/shale and recovery through the bore piping, then it's not fracking.

Just heard the geologist speak about it, last week. How obsolete can the info be, in 7 days?

If they don't handle the contaminants they store above ground correctly, then of course, it's likely to soak down right into the ground water. But that's not because of the fraking, that's because someone has been careless/negligent and allowed above ground contamination.

We have acted unwisely in getting our needed energy - sure. No question about it.

We have a lot of oil off our CA coast, but because of one oil spill back in the 50's, it's all off-limits. We also have a lot of oil up in the barren arctic, which is already set up with the pipeline, several wells etc., so bringing in the new wells would be very easy - but most of it has been stopped by Obama.

I'm just saying, you have a scarce commodity, and high demand. Yes, the price will increase when the demand for it increases, but it's not the companies fault it's increased.

I'm not familiar with strip mining. I know the area around Colorado Springs has a lot of contamination. I worked under the director in charge of overseeing the clean up of my employer's dumping, both in Colorado Springs, and at a plant in CA.

Yes, this was a very warm year. But the last three Summers have been below average in So. CA.

It may seem that way, but forests can definitely return. Early Californians logged the giant coastal Redwoods like crazy, clear cutting everything they could get to.

Talk about a scar on the land! You can imagine a forest of almost nothing BUT huge Redwood trees, all cut down, and sent to the mill.
And there was no effort made to replant anything. Concern about ecology was very rare in those days. If it was done, it was done only enough to stop mud-slides in the wet months.

Even so, today, we have a large second growth Redwood forest. They're not the equal of the General Sherman (largest tree in the world), but they're really big and beautiful, and have again taken over the former forest.

You know what happens after a wild fire - it adds a lot of nitrogen to the soil, and next year, that will be the best growing area of the forest.

You set up nature to grow, and grow or regrow, she will. That pine beetle is the shits though - it's killed thousands of acres of pines in CA. Hiking through them is no fun - like walking through a graveyard with the dead standing above ground, instead of below.

Oh, I believe in climate change - that's obviously a part of the whole package. We've had climate change since day #1, and it will continue. What I don't believe in is guys like Al Gore, who have invested millions into "green" everything, telling me about climate change caused by man.

First, because people like Gore have big bucks to be made if they can sell this idea, (and yes, he is a HUGE energy consumer in his Tennessee mansion, as is Michael Moore in his home - hello hypocrites!), second, despite our natural egotistical slant to things, we don't control the sun, and the sun decides how much heat we receive. We control only a small portion of how much heat we retain.

But yes, our climate does change - that is irrefutable. I suspect that damn pine beetle will do worse damage than climate change to your pinyon pines, though.

There's no reason why a strip mine that is closing down, can't be put back like it was - true! it won't have nearly as much mass, and won't be a "mountain" any more, (more like a hill), but it can sure have the tailings from the mine buried deep, and the area recovered with secondary and top soils, fertilized a little, and replanted.

If you have area's where that's not happening, you should be screaming at your elected officials - along with all your neighbors, and organizing for united action against it.

I've seen abandoned mines in Alaska, and it's not pretty. The area is so verdant that you don't really notice most of these mines, but still, it's a gash on the earth, and they shouldn't be allowed to remain there, once the mine is played out and no longer useful.

In Arizona they've had several people fall into old mines that were just covered over with wooden beams and dirt. Eventually, the wood rots out, and the next person or animal that weighs too much, will break through and fall.

A bond system seem sensible. The company puts up a big bond, and when the area is closed down and has been properly restored, the company gets the bond back. Otherwise, the big bond goes to restore the mine area. This may already be in place - I know VERY little about mines, aside from exploring an old Gold mine in Alaska, years ago.

Nice. But stay away Urbane Guerilla! :D

Southern Cali has its own set of ecological problems, although there is some overlap, of course. I should clarify what I mean when I post about the "Southwest" - Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah.

Someone looking out their window in LA (or anywhere in southern California) is going to have a completely different view than I have from mine. :cool:

I will say that both southern California and Colorado share the water problem, and that's huge.


I will address scientific issues when the information comes from research published in a peer reviewed journal and conducted by scientists with actual names and professional affiliations.

The "geologist" could be the tooth fairy for all I know.


I know. :rolleyes:

I grew up in Colorado Springs and I agree. The entire Front Range has many environmental disaster stories to tell. One of the worst is that of The Rocky Flats hooror show outside Denver, but that's a subject for another thread.

Please go back and re-read the last part of my post. I have already addressed most of your comments. I'm not going to repeat myself. I will inform anyone who might be reading this that the California Redwood forest and the Rocky Mountain forests are two completely different ecosystems.

Bingo! One more time: I do not discuss climatology with scientific atheists.


A bond system might work if carried out in good faith by the parties on both sides of the equation. There is no such system that I aware of in Colorado, but then things sneak below my radar all the time.

Meanwhile, back on Comedy Central, look at those damn Republicans performing their sidewhow!

The contamination in PA that I am familiar is the result of mishandled materials at the surface as Adak mentioned, but poor concreting could pose a problem. The lighting gas at the tap trick in Dimock, PA was common before drilling took place. I'm not saying gas companies have not or will not screw up, but Gasland intentionally misrepresented what was happening in Dimock.

Lampy and I have been having a mostly civil discussion (we all get cranky but we're both forgiving people irl) here. And keeping those interested abreast of news items as they pop up.

I've never watched Gasland. I'll have to check it out. And like I said, a lot of things sneak by my radar, so thanks for the heads up on the link. :)

BTW, did anyone catch Newt Gingrich saying we should make the "Fiscal Cliff" a drinking game? Nice to hear a little actual wit from the Republican side.

@SamIam:, When you've lived on Adak Island, you would only be called "Urbane", by those who have not seen where Adak Island is located.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

On the bright side we have 25 more full days to count down Obama's willingness to reduce his current mad spending spree.

25 days to go. Amount Obama and the Democrats are willing to cut current spending: 0.00%

It's great having strong ideologically driven Socialists in the White House and Congress.

You won't find great fun and games like this among your rational political bodies - no siree, Bob!

We should charge admission! ;)

also you're really bad at this whole... knowing what the fuck you're talking about thing

Yeah, I already knew about Adak Island. I think it's kind of cool that you took its name for your user name.

My mention of Urbane Guerilla was a little Celllar in joke. Hang around here long enough and Urbane Guerilla will probably grace this forum with one of his occasional posts. He's also from Southern Cali, but there any possible resemblence would end. UG is seldom civil and his posts are outrageous. He's so far to the right that he makes Hitler look like a progressive. His posts do have a certain bizarre entertainment value, though.

I hope you will continue to be active on this forum. It's always interesting to read someone SANELY posting a view from the right, even though I often disagree. ;)

How *wonderful*!

Someone who still believes in the projected spending figures of the Democrats and Obama!

Wonderful entertainment, right here! Only wish I could sell tickets to have you explain just WHY you believe any of that malarky.

Here we are, just 3 weeks away from a big kick in the gut to our economy, and the Democrats and Obama, have still not offered to cut their current spending by even 1/10 of 1/100th, (yes, that's 1/1,000ths).

The logic is clear -- and FUN.

1) We're spending WAY too much money.

2) So we'll get a tiny bit more money from the wealthy, and we'll continue to overspend like a drunken sailor on liberty.

And EVERYTHING WILL BE JUST DANDY!! :D :D :D

See? There is NO NEED to cut our current mad spending spree! Not even by ONE PENNEY, by gawd!! ;)

The Democrats' trying to avoid the fiscal cliff is so hilarious, when you step back and just enjoy their madness. I believe it helps you understand it a lot better, if you're drunk. :rolleyes:

You don't believe the Democrats. We get it. I think there's *no* number that you would believe, you just Do. Not. Believe. What if they said they'd cut what the Republican's have offered? Would you believe it? Given the (mono)tone of your remarks, I doubt it. Since it appears you won't accept any communications coming from them, why do you bother? And if the parties negotiating feel that way, why would they bother to continue to negotiate? It's clear your respect for "the Democrats and Obama" is essentially zero. The "other side", such as it is, doesn't have the ability to have their way by fiat, so... so... so what? Together they must negotiate. You recuse yourself. Though you abdicate your opportunity to responsibly share your ideas, you don't remain silent, you just sit there with your loud tantrum, moving neither yourself nor the process forward.

Meanwhile, you just ignore facts. You say there are no cuts to spending proposed, not even a tiny fraction of a percent. Everyone else can see your statement's false; how can you expect to work with political opponents when you lie like this? How does that increase your credibilty as an informed citizen who has a point of view worthy of attention, never mind respect?

I know a little about you from what you've shared here, but none of that follows any kind of logic. You say you're so rational, but you don't exhibit any of that rationality when it comes to political discussions like this. It's a shame, I had high hopes for you. I'd hoped that you could share your viewpoints, some of which are different from mine. I'd hoped to learn from you, but posts like this offer nothing to learn from. I feel like I want to scold you, to tell you to grow up, but that's not really appropriate. But I do wish your arguments were more mature. When they are, I'll give them more attention. If they're good, I'll give them more respect. But not this crap.

Spending is being cut. The war in Iraq has drawn down and is ending, the war in Afganistan will come to an end. We, as a nation, did not re-elect the people with the political will to send our nation to war with another nation who did not attack us (Iraq), while ignoring the war in the country that mattered (Afganistan), all while CUTTING taxes and revenues to pay for these wars. We can now stop spending the billions of dollars a year funding our enemies. I applaud these spending cuts. I can stop doing armed social work and capacity building over seas, and we can maybe..just maybe...provide some social work and capacity building in our own country. I understand that men and women like Adak does not want to give his tax dollars to the United States and it's people. Perhaps he should move to Iraq or Afganistan.

When Ann mother fucking Coulter is making more sense than Adak and, indeed, almost all of fox news, the world REALLY IS UPSIDE DOWN.

During Reagan's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Reagan would approve some tax hikes - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

During George H. Bush's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Bush would approve some tax hikes - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

During George W. Bush's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Bush would approve some big ticket spending bill - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

No, I wouldn't believe a Democrat's promise to cut spending, if they served it on a silver platter, 7 days a week. And NO, the parties are NOT negotiating, because Tim Geitner has made it clear that the first order of business is upping the tax rates on those making more than 250k a year. Nothing else can be discussed, until that happens.

That's not negotiating, that's not compromising. That's the socialist's agenda, and nothing else.

The spending cut i would believe from the Democrats, is the bill they pass in Congress, and give to the President to be signed into law - and the President signs it. That's the Democrats' spending cuts that I'll believe.

The Republicans have proposed spending cuts both now, and those that would be phased in, in the coming years.

The Democrats have proposed ZERO, ZIP, NADA spending cuts in next years fiscal year.

NOT ONE PENNEY.

Their proposals are:

1) To increase taxes on the wealthy, immediately.

2) In the years ahead, to consider some cuts in PROJECTED spending.

Do you know what that means?

1) That our actual spending will continue to increase. Further increasing our debt.

2) That Lucy will once again, pull that football away from Charlie Brown, so when he tries to kick it, he'll fall on his keister -- again.
Which is to say that the "promises" to cut spending, will evaporate like fog hitting the hot desert air, once the Democrats (again!) have their tax increase, and can look for new ways to spend it.

Like Wimpy, in Popeye, the Democrats will be GLAD to pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today. :D :D

You understand, that the wealthy - if they are taxed per Obama's wishes - will only pay in enough to hold our debt off, for about 9 days.The rest of the year, we'll still be going into debt, if we don't stop spending money hand over fist.

Does that SOUND right to you? I'm not appealing to your logic here, because I'm quite sure you let yours visit elsewhere, but just from an emotional first, instinctual side, does that sound right to you?

Two questions I'd love to have a Democrat answer:

1) What part of "The overspending has to stop", do you not understand? We're talking about a TRILLION dollars plus, per year.


2) What part of doing the wrong thing, do you want to compromise with?

Truth is, compromise if over-rated. If I "compromised" your fuel tank, with 50% water, you'd drive nowhere. You'd be nearly blind if the eye doctor compromised your lenses with 50% opaque glass. If your lawn mower only cut half the long grass when you mowed the yard, you'd really be mad. Absolutely dismayed if the Oncologist just removed 50% of the malignant tumor, I'm sure.

But compromising ALL OUR FISCAL future, IS SOMEHOW OK??? That's something I should compromise on??

Yeah, right!

Say "hello" to Linus for me, Lucy. I won't be kicking the football, today.

See the Budget Control Act of 2011 signed by President Obama and voted for by 95 Democrats in the House and by 45 Democrats in the Senate. That's a majority of Democrats in Congress.

These are the default budget cuts required by law, and the only way they won't occur is if Congress agrees to do something else. We're talking about up to $1.2 Trillion in cuts through 2021. Brought to you by the Democrats (and Republicans.)

How does this simple fact fit in your delusional worldview? Is it like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole?

"NOT ONE PENNY" :lol:

glatt, thank you for that succinct reply.

Adak, in response to your question to me, I await your response to glatt's clear statement refuting your claim that there've been no spending cuts.

Like Bugs Bunny, you will see Donald Duck and his friend Little Lulu walking down an ordinary street. Then Yosemite Sam takes 50 bucks away from Wile E Coyote and THEN how will he buy ACME products, inevitably causing 3000 employees to lose their jobs, resulting in a collapse in The Hundred Acres Wood.

AND DO YOU KNOW WHY? DO YOU? DO YOU?

Freaking DEMOCRATS, that's why, you fool.

@ BigV :D


You know, Adak, your belief system may work just fine for the Rush Limbaugh born again crowd, but when you trot it out in the real world, it fails you abysmally. What part of bills signed into law don’t you understand? Congress (which just so happens to include the Democrats) has been using cuts in discretionary spending in an attempt to reduce the deficit for quite some time now. I’ll give you just one example – housing assistance:

This glimpse of reality is provided by the NON PARTISEN Center for Budget and Policy Priorities – not MSNBC, not some populist blog, and not from the communist party. You might try stepping outside your comfort zone some time and try getting your information from a source other than Tea Party propaganda. That noise on the roof is not Santa’s reindeer or Charlie Brown’s football. It’s the sound of a wake-up call for the Republican Party. Is there any intelligent life in there?



What part of the need for a reasonable tax code don’t you understand? Why do you and your Tea Party buddies think it’s perfectly fine to hold the entire country hostage for the sake of a few millionaires? What makes you think that the Republicans can continue to cover up a poor motive with doublespeak such as “entitlements,” “small business,” and “job creators,” to name just a few.

It’s time to leave behind the doctrine of the world according to Fox along with its vocabulary. Let’s get honest for once. How about:

“Big corporations, which continue to outsource American jobs overseas, demand that the middle class relinquish its EARNED BENEFITS and give the taxes from their hard earned pay checks to special interests which couldn’t care less about this country or its people.”

Please respond with something other than dogma. If I want to take everything on faith, I’ll join the Branch Davidians.

While Adak has escaped off into some delusional fantasy land and is busy scribbling “Who is John Galt” on the wall in the men’s room, the real world marches on, and the Republicans still retain first place honors in the bizarre humor competition.

Yesterday, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell actually stood up and filibustered his own bill.

Wait...

What?

- Huffington Post


Jon Stewart should fire his staff and just show clips from C-span.

Ha! What fun! :D

These are cuts, which if they are activated, will be cuts in PROJECTED and /or FUTURE spending. NOTHING HAS BEEN CUT FROM CURRENT SPENDING YET!

NOT ONE PENNEY!

These are the sad facts - always a trial for liberals to look at, but give it a try.

Attachment 42019

Do you see any reduction in our National Debt projections?

NO.


Do you notice any reduction in our National Deficit projections? Yes. That means we'll have higher tax revenues - and if it happens, it won't just be on the rich. They don't have THAT much money.

True, it MIGHT be reduced, but all it seems we'll have right now, is a slower growth to our National Debt.

And despite all the hot air and hand waving going on in Washington, (where Today, the Speaker of the House said there was no progress in the negotiations with the White House, because the White House has never negotiated on any issue, so far.)

I hope this fiscal cliff actually works, when and if we get to that point.

Politicians LOVE to spend our money. It buys them votes, by attracting donors to their campaigns, when they do it. Not just the Democrats, either. EVERY politician wants to be re-elected several times, and they need to curry favor to get their campaign coffers $stu$$ed$ to overflowing.

It's not THEIR money, why NOT use it to help themselves get re-elected?

"You want a new bridge to nowhere?"
"Sure, here's a few million for ya!"

"You want a new airport?" "Absolutely! We'll call it an anti terrorist auxiliary civil defense resource!" :D

Lovely! :D :D

I am writing about ACTUAL cuts in CURRENT spending, not something projected, like Wimpy's repayment on his hamburgers, "Next Tuesday".

And right now, there has been $0.00 dollars cut in actual spending.

NOT ONE PENNEY!

Oh, you should join 'em, Sam! Waco, Texas is looking for a few new head cases, I've heard. :D

You DO understand that it was OUR DEAR POLITICIANS, who have made outsourcing our jobs overseas, necessary if you want to stay in business, don't you?

Apple is bringing back a few jobs, but by and large, if you wanted to compete, you had no choice but to open a plant overseas.

It wasn't the businessman's choice - it was the dear sweet politicians, who made it a necessity. But who gets blamed for it? Why the dirty evil businessman - why can't he compete with nationalized "slaves" working for $2-$10 per DAY?

The nerve of those businessmen!! :rolleyes:

When it comes to Tax code reform, Sam - you are preaching to the choir!

Our tax code is an utter mess, with thousands of loopholes, grants, exclusions, you name it - it's got it.

Any sense of fairness went out the window, long long ago.

Reagan was the last guy who cut our tax code down to size.

sure, except that's the exact opposite of reality. On every major issue so far, the left has compromised much further than the right.

Oh, wait, i forgot, they aren't ~real conservatives~ like you so they don't count. :rolleyes:

If the Democrats bent any further in their negotiations they'd be hairpin shaped.

The tea-party influence in the republican negotiations has meant absolute heel digging and a refusal to consider any compromises.

Dear Adak,

Please learn to spell 'penny.'

Sincerely,

Mrs McGillicuddy's 2nd grade class

Interesting idea. However, upon reflection, I think Texas is best left to the Texans. If the weather co-operates, I may just go set up a winter camp for a few days somewhere near Island In the Sky National Park over in Utah.

No CNN, no Internet, no newspapers, no pointless arguments with strangers. Just me and my Corgi and the incredible landscapes along with clear desert nights where the sky is filled with more stars than many people ever get to see. Yeah, I'd like that. Going to go if I can.

You're actually better at arguing science than you are political issues, and that's pretty pathetic. You must think we're so stupid that we don't even know the difference between the national debt and the deficit. Sorry, you tried to sneak that one past the wrong crowd.

Maybe Glatt will explain it to you if you ask him nicely. I'm done wasting my time.

Obama and the Democrats have spent 4 years cutting programs and taxes. The increased spending was all to save big business, jobs, and fix what the republicans broke.

I would like you to name a few big items that the left has compromised on more than the conservatives:

Counterpoint:

1) Cut the spending. I don't mean as a percent above the current spending (which they are calling now "the baseline"). I'm talking about cutting ACTUAL current spending.

2) Obama care

3) military strength (we now have less than half the number of ships we had in the peak 1980's), for one example.

4) Gun ownership and/or right to carry.

5) Federal tax code littered with exclusions, exemptions, and both intentional and unintentional loopholes.

6) Trade treaties that force our businesses to go overseas to use cheap, almost slave labor, in order to stay competitive.

7) Paying Egypt 400 Million dollars per year in "Foreign Aid", for bribe money. Lots of other countries get this kind of aid, as well.

8) Bring our sons and daughters home from most (not all), of these overseas military bases.

We don't need to protect Japan any more - they should take over their own defense. Same with South Korea - they have a HUGE economy, and a very effective military (if rather small imo). We need to be watching the DMZ between N and S Korea for 62 years, like we need another hole in our heads.

We don't need to protect West Germany anymore. The East Germans have promised not to attack! :rolleyes:

Overall, the only thing the Conservatives got in the last two presidents' terms has been the Bush tax cuts - and if there is ONE single new bill that benefits more working Americans than a broad reduction in income tax, I don't know what it would be.

That's a winner for everyone, if it applies to everyone.

No, definitely not. Obama has increased the Federal gov't personnel by several thousands of gov't workers since taking office.

I agree that the Republicans AND the Democrats both were flagrantly stupid in pandering to "home ownership for everyone", and the "casino" type investment banking that Wall St. has been doing.

I will point out that it was Barney Franks (Democrat) who testified to Congress that the FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC loan program was in "excellent health", in June of '08, and did NOTHING to stop it from going bankrupt in the next six months.

Yes, some big investments by the Feds were probably needed, just to help calm the nerves of the many people affected by the crash of '08.

You have to understand that, as our Debt climbs closer to 100% of our GDP, our leaders feel compelled to do more risky things to keep us fiscally moving forward. We can't keep walking barefoot across the broken glass, and not expect the occasional cut.