Increase Revenues = Better Economy, Not Higher Taxes - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 07-28-2011, 12:46 PM

Good article about how administration regulatory policies are inhibiting jobs growth.

BTW 398k new people filing unemployed first time in 4 months weekly unemployment ( at least until the revision is released next week, typically adding 2-5k onto initial figure)

Increase Revenues = Better Economy Not Higher Taxes - Marita Noon - Townhall Finance

just 1 quick example

Quote:

A variety of business and industrial groups are working together to point out the detrimental impact of the EPA’s proposed new ozone ruling, calling it, “one of the greatest threats to U.S. economic growth and job creation.” If implemented, the new rule will put most of the country, including nearly all of California, in a non-attainment status, which will require, as estimated by the EPA, $20-90 billion annually. Companies would be punished by having to obtain emission offsets (doing through regulation what—at the prodding of the people—Congress didn’t support in cap-and-trade proposals), install controls, and face expensive retrofits just to be allowed to continue current operations. While these regulatory fixes may create some short-term jobs, the regulations will seriously damage America’s ability to compete in the future in this economic war—all for no substantial benefit.

JackBauer · 07-28-2011, 01:16 PM

Yeah, all those onerous regulations are really hurting the corporate bottom line.

Oh, wait.

***DarrylS*** · 07-28-2011, 01:19 PM

I think companies should just be able to pollute the earth and dump toxic waste wherever they want, f.. all of its citizens, f.. the land. ...

JackBauer · 07-28-2011, 01:22 PM

Exactly. Apparently some people don't care for pollution controls on coal-fired power plants.

I don't see anything concrete in this article to suggest MORE deregulation would lead to increased revenues flowing to the government.

***patsfan13*** · 07-28-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

I think companies should just be able to pollute the earth and dump toxic waste wherever they want, f.. all of its citizens, f.. the land. ...

Well we have had scrubbers for many years, However as with everything else there is a point of diminishing returns.

For example if we decide that .1 ppmillion of arsenic was acceptable in water there would be a cost associated with that, in many cases it would make sense. OTOH if we instead decided the level should be reduced to 1part per trillion the cost could rise by a factor of 1000x and might not make sense (BTW this is just an example I don't have any idea about arsenic in water, other than it is a naturally occurring substance that is in drinking water).

In this case there have been requirements for scrubbers to remove particulate matter from the exhaust from coal fired power plants. They work very well, OF the goal is to put coal plants out of business you try to establish standards that are impossibly to meet economically. CO2 being defined as a pollutant is a joke since it is essential to life on this planet. No CO2 + No Plants and no people or animals.

Of course the poor are disproportionately affected by increased energy cost.

Given the attitude for utopias by Liberals the current unemployment rates will become the new norm under the dem party.

***DarrylS*** · 07-28-2011, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Well we have had scrubbers for many years, However as with everything else there is a point of diminishing returns.

For example if we decide that .1 ppmillion of arsenic was acceptable in water there would be a cost associated with that, in many cases it would make sense. OTOH if we instead decided the level should be reduced to 1part per trillion the cost could rise by a factor of 1000x and might not make sense (BTW this is just an example I don't have any idea about arsenic in water, other than it is a naturally occurring substance that is in drinking water).

In this case there have been requirements for scrubbers to remove particulate matter from the exhaust from coal fired power plants. They work very well, OF the goal is to put coal plants out of business you try to establish standards that are impossibly to meet economically. CO2 being defined as a pollutant is a joke since it is essential to life on this planet. No CO2 + No Plants and no people or animals.

Of course the poor are disproportionately affected by increased energy cost.

Given the attitude for utopias by Liberals the current unemployment rates will become the new norm under the dem party.

Just keep dumping chemicals into our rivers, oil into our oceans, pollute the air, raw sewage into our bays, dispose of hazardous wastes in our landfills.. it is all good, because it helps the corporatists bottom line. Decrease gas mileage standards, build more coal fired plants, raze mountains in West Virginia, pipe oil sands across British Columbia, stop all the brou ha ha about double hulled vessels, allow anyone to drill anywhere as they will police themselves, hydrofrack anywhere if you feel like it. It is all good, and apparently what the right wants...

The bottom line that it never trickles down.. remove everything and see what happens.. if you did all of this nothing would happen that would benefit the common man, in this system the rich will get richer and the divide will increase.

The health of the American People is not important, our precious land and rivers are not important, just make more money for the boys and girls on Wall St. that is all that is important.

Titus Pullo · 07-28-2011, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

(BTW this is just an example I don't have any idea about arsenic in water, other than it is a naturally occurring substance that is in drinking water).

and a piss-poor example, at that... look, we all know your camp goes through life perpetually trying to justify selfishness and greed, but please know what you're talking about when attempting "examples."

your tactic of pretending the environment doesn't matter up against unemployment really rings quite hollow. It's not that black-or-white, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

PatsFanInVa · 07-29-2011, 04:42 AM

Well, the more people die, the more the right wing can claim another debt reduction. One more widow, one less future obligation, to sanitize the Elvis Costello line. But then you would have to complain about the widow's social security survivor benefit, and the whopping $250 burial bene.

***DarrylS*** · 07-29-2011, 05:29 AM

Last years Gulf Oil Spill showed the results of lax regulation..

Now this year the Exxon Spill in Yellowstone..

Montana Oil Spill | Yellowstone River oil spill outrages Montana residents - Los Angeles Times

Quote:

An oil spill in Montana's Yellowstone River surged toward North Dakota on Sunday as outraged residents demanded more government oversight of Exxon Mobil's cleanup.

An estimated 750 to 1,000 barrels, or up to 42,000 gallons, spilled through a damaged pipeline in the riverbed, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said. The break near Billings could be related to the river's high water level, officials said.

But Montana's governor disputed the 10-mile estimate.

"Nobody can say definitively," Gov. Brian Schweitzer said. "It's too early. We need boats on the water," not just flyovers. Because of the high water, however, boats were potentially unsafe.

There were reports of oil as far as 100 miles away near the town of Hysham, Yellowstone County Commissioner Bill Kennedy said.

The Massey Coal Mine Disaster Also comes to mind, corporatists despite the regulation continue to take short cuts with our environment.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 07-29-2011, 06:31 AM

It's pretty ironic to be all worried about leaving our children debt when we're not at all worried about whether we'll be leaving them an earth worth living in - if, indeed, we've even left them an earth capable of sustaining life at all.