- #141
ThomasT
- 529
- 0
This makes sense to me, unless and until mheslep or someone else has a compelling argument to the contrary.turbo said:
This makes sense to me, unless and until mheslep or someone else has a compelling argument to the contrary.turbo said:Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.ThomasT said:The federal government is held to a higher standard than state and local governments.
Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.Afaik, no US presidents have gone to jail for corruption, but lots of state governors have. And (I'm guessing) even more local aldermen, councilmen, city managers, etc.
Yes I see you think this. Why?Sure, the federal government is also to a certain extent corrupt, but I think that the bureacrats entrusted with enforcing federal directives are generally less corrupt than local and state officials.
That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.ThomasT said:It doesn't take all the resources. But it takes a preponderance of them. And for that reason, and some others, the enforcement of various regulations on big industry is best administered by the federal government, imho.
This is an interesting point, imho. Wrt, "less educated states" I don't think that that necessarily applies to the people running the states. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me that the "abuses pushed by greed" would be "easier to commit on a smaller level" (or at least more prevalent, as evidenced by the greater incidence of detection and prosecution of abuses on the state and local levels).Evo said:Do you really trust that without federal oversight that environmental causes will be given much thought, especially in the less educated states? Do you doubt that abuses pushed by greed will be much easier to commit on a smaller level?
I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment. The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).feathermoon said:In a big way, in fact. Economic losses due to pollution, environmental factors are huge. Coupled with high health care costs associated with both, and regulations pay for themselves MANY times over.
It's not a circular argument, it's the argument that might makes right. Is there really any doubt about this?mheslep said:That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.
Good point. But we're talking about the enforcement of environmental protection laws.mheslep said:Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.
Another good point. But here's the thing. What the President of the US does in terms of advocacy of particular courses of action wrt things that will affect great numbers of people is immediately, more or less, evident to the mass populace.mheslep said:Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.
Because they're subjected to greater scrutiny. Precisely because their decisions and actions affect more people.mheslep said:Yes I see you think this. Why?
turbo said:Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it.
If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
Dotini said:* In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234]
* He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]
* Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]
* He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235]
* He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]
* He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]
* He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
Dotini said:* In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234]
* He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]
* Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]
* He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235]
* He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]
* He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]
* He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
Much of China is a good counter-example to that - unless you don't accept that China is an "economic success", of course. Rainforest destruction is economically "successful" as well - that's why people are doing it.mheslep said:I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment.
The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).
he's nuts, IMO. And just who is going to takeover these functions?Spending: Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would do this in part by eliminating five cabinet departments: Depeartment of Energy (DOE); Housing and Urban Development; Commerce; Interior; and Education. (Paul has not offered specifics on what would happen to some of the functions currently performed by the departments he wants to abolish--maintaining our nuclear weapons, administering our intellectual property system, and conducting the Census, for instance.)
Sounds like a boon for Wall Street and big Corporations.Taxes: Paul has said in the past that he'd like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn't suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 35 percent. And it would extend the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the estate tax. Paul's campaign has said elsewhere that he supports eliminating the capital gains tax, which, as we've written, would be a boon for, among others, private-equity managers on Wall Street.
No more corporate oversight to keep Big corps honest. Brilliant!Regulation: He would also get rid of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law intended to increase regulation of Wall Street. And he'd scrap Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate governance law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal.
oh, yes let's snub other countries. This will really endear the rest of the World to us, but hey, we're so popular and loved, why not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world?End Foreigh Aid
Me, I find the idea of borrowing $1.2 trillion/year from other countries and then giving it out as 'aid' to still other* countries as nuts.Evo said:...
oh, yes let's snub other countries. This will really endear the rest of the World to us, but hey, we're so popular and loved, why not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...taxes-spending-social-security-142130626.html
Romney was right when he said corporations are just people. This is especially true in the context of taxes, because the income people receive via the corporation is inevitably taxed. Zeroing out the corporate income tax does not mean income escapes taxation.Evo said:Some of his *proposals*
he's nuts, IMO. And just who is going to takeover these functions?
Sounds like a boon for Wall Street and big Corporations.
On Reagan, Tip O'neil's congress and spending:Paul: ... If we don't keep the right records, can you imagine this tax simplification bill that just came out? If we don't learn those forms and do it right, we have a gun pointed at our head by the IRS and say, "You're going to be put in prison if you don't learn to fill out those forms"... We are guilty until proven innocent--
Buckley: No.
Paul: ... then we will go to jail they confiscate money from out banks --
Buckley: You got it a little bit wrong Dr Paul. Here is how it works. If the federal government --if the IRS --contests your tax, the presumption is theirs.
Paul: Right.
Buckley: But in any prosecution of you for a criminal trespass, the presumption is yours.
Buckley: ... that's what Reagan wants, a constitutional amendment [to balance the budget].
Paul: ... that's a cop-out, because we have to ask, what were the number of vetoes that Ronald Reagan used in his term? You know, I did support Ronald Reagn in 1976, but, you know, I sincerely believe I owe Gerald Ford and apology. Because Gerald Ford vetoed more bills, percentage wise, than Ronald Reagn ever did. So Ronald Reagn did not really follow through.
Buckley: No, Dr Paul listen. You know and I know and everybody knows that you know and I know [laughter] that the techniques of handling presidential obstructionism were devised by Tip O'Neil during the past 15 years to make it easy to get around. What they simply do is amalgamate everything into one big bill. So there is the President of the US. he finds out he either vetoes this bill in which case the zoos close in Washington and the animals die or else he signs it. [laughter] Now, he is also been after the line item veto. When Ford was vetoing every other day of his life, he was getting bills for $50-100-200 million, $300 million. But that's not the kind of bills they have been giving the president of the US in the last congressional generation. They have been giving two-time bills, $500 billion, $400 billion, $200 billion.
But that's the tax rate before all of the deductions, write offs, loop holes, etc... I can't imagine any corporation having no deductions.mheslep said:Romney was right when he said corporations are just people. This is especially true in the context of taxes, because the income people receive via the corporation is inevitably taxed. Zeroing out the corporate income tax does not mean income escapes taxation.
That's another good point, his entire campaign is based on nonsense and false promises. BUT, he can steal enough votes if he runs as an independant to cause the GOP choice to lose the bid for Presidency.FlexGunship said:Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:
The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).
I'm just saying...
Yep, about half of large corps pay less than half that rate effectively, while many of the small companies without the same access to tax avoidance pay the full freight. I expect the large companies like it that way, keeps out the little guy competition with their troublesome disruptive ideas. It's been posted already in this thread that Paul intends to do away with many of the loopholes, as does much of the current GOP (not all), and, even if he didn't, the loopholes don't pay as well at a lower marginal rate which levels the playing field.Evo said:But that's the tax rate before al of the deductions, write offs, loop holes, etc... I can't imagine any corporation having no deductions.
I doubt it. I certainly point to China as an example of economic success, but without political freedom. I also grant China has bad pollution problems. But I ask, as compared to what? The Chinese are no longer denuding their country side because, as in extremely poor countries, wood is their only fuel and building material and farming/ranching is the only way to make a living. Also, I'd suggest that Chinese pollution is a temporary phase, as once one rises out of subsistence living clean air and water can become a primary concern. If the Chinese get some political freedom I expect they'll do something about that.AlephZero said:Much of China is a good counter-example to that - unless you don't accept that China is an "economic success", of course. Rainforest destruction is economically "successful" as well - that's why people are doing it.
Yes, I suggest the attempt to regulate everything can only lead to bad regulations and cronyism.That was the result of bad regulations, not no regulations.
Eh, Statoil is a company 2/3 owned by the government, not run by it, similar I suppose to the current General Motors - US ownership situation. And Statoil is far from the beginning and end of the Norwegian oil industry in the North Sea.AlephZero said:... Try somewhere like Norway as a better example (e.g. the oil industry is 100% state controlled with profits taxed at more than 80%, but there's nothing much wrong with the standard of living or the quality of the environment).
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-congressional-approval-for-major-regulatio/...requires congressional approval of a major rule -- one that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more -- before it can take effect. ...
The bill says that if Congress doesn't approve the rule within a certain time period, the rule is deemed not to have been approved and it shall not take effect,
mheslep said:I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment. The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).
FlexGunship said:Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:
The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).
The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).
I'm just saying...
daveb said:Not to hijack the thread (and you're right, it's COngress), why does Obama get blamed for things like the Health Care Act, etc., when it was Congress that poassed these bills?
mheslep said:Laws are made only by legislatures. Regulations can be created, with the force of law, by any old GS whatever employed by the executive branch. There have been some moves to change the current situation.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-congressional-approval-for-major-regulatio/
I can't see how the two compare; the Aral was the 4th largest lake in the world.feathermoon said:I don't think that's a good example. When the Aral sea's headwaters were diverted for irrigation, was the economic gains in farming equal or greater to the local economic losses of peoples dependent on it for fish, etc.? ...
Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ...FlexGunship said:Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:
The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.
Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.
I don't know. Of course the President can not unilaterally overturn the Federal Reserve Act. He requires positive action by the Congress, new legislation to do that. He does however have the power to appoint Fed Chairmen, so he could certainly appoint someone that will pursue only tight money policy, open the Fed books to auditing, etc, somebody like Jim Grant. The appointment is subject to Senate approval, but again for a newly elected P. he will get his way for awhile, and even if not, as the current President has demonstrated, he can do rolling recess appointments.The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).
A newly elected President might push that through the Senate, as there is already substantial agreement. The usual defense of catering to the rich won't stick to a President Paul.The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).
He's losing to Romney in the latest poll.Gokul43201 said:Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
Romney back to leading US Republicans in Iowa: poll
(AFP) – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney has retaken the lead among Republican White House contenders in Iowa less than two weeks before it holds the first nominating contest, a poll said Thursday.
The former Massachusetts governor and on-again, off-again favorite had appeared to slip behind former House speaker Newt Gingrich in recent weeks, but the poll by Rasmussen Reports showed Romney regaining momentum.
The poll showed Romney with 25 percent support, followed by small-government champion Ron Paul at 20 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent, with the remainder of the candidates at 10 percent or less.
mheslep said:Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ...
Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.
As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.John Creighto said:He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.