American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442143]Investing in additional infrastructure to produce and transport fossil fuels is counterproductive, because fossil fuels are on the way out. It would be like buying additional desktop computers. You'd see brief fiscal stimulus from the short to mid-term jobs created. I'm not sure we need fiscal stimulus now. Maybe five years ago. I'd rather see infrastructure dollars spent on bridge repair and flood repair/reclamation right now, maybe wildfire mitigation if that's even possible. That's assuming it can't be spent on producing say wind energy.[/QUOTE]You don't read much about "peak oil" anymore. The recent reputable forecasts I've seen for energy consumption show worldwide oil, natural gas and coal production increasing for many years in the future. The U.S. EIA forecasts renewables will only be 12% of total USA energy consumption in 2040, up from 9% in 2012.

As to Jackson's point, I know you're not a communist, so what are you proposing? Should government mandate or otherwise ensure that oil, gas and pipeline companies not spend money on exploration, production and infrastructure because it's a dying industry? Jimmy Carter had the same idea about natural gas, and used price controls to shut down investment. He was very wrong. Considering what's happened in the oil and gas industry over the last 5 or 10 years, the large increases in production, I don't understand the basis for your beliefs.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442147]I support the idea of increasing government infrastructure spending, but that doesn't apply here because the Keystone Pipeline is to be built with private money, not government funds.[/QUOTE]I understand that, but money is fungible and government and private investment compete for capital and for opportunities to deploy it (the "crowding out" effect). So I'm not concerned with whether dollars are private or public, only with where they are going. Now, whether and what types of infrastructure should be privately owned is a separate debate. The risk of private ownership of the pipeline is that the owners will engage in future rent-seeking behavior to the detriment of the public, and that seems like a safe bet to me. The advantages might outweigh those risks; I haven't looked at the particular project as far as that goes. I will say that it does seem like a transfer of negative externalities to the people disrupted by the pipeline, but those same people will probably benefit disproportionately from the positive (although mostly temporary) economic effects.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442149]

The risk of private ownership of the pipeline is that the owners will engage in future rent-seeking behavior to the detriment of the public, and that seems like a safe bet to me.[/QUOTE]It doesn't work that way. The owners of the pipeline would have to show that they lack significant market power, in order to set rates at the level they want. Otherwise, the rates will be set based on cost service, plus a reasonable rate of return on investment. This is regulated by FERC. If the owners of the pipeline engage in rent-seeking behavior then their customers will pursue a remedy through legal and regulatory means.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442149] The advantages might outweigh those risks; I haven't looked at the particular project as far as that goes. I will say that it does seem like a transfer of negative externalities to the people disrupted by the pipeline, but those same people will probably benefit disproportionately from the positive (although mostly temporary) economic effects.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you wouldn't argue that people should ride around in horse-drawn buggies when technology exists for automobiles. Transportation of oil by pipeline is much cheaper and also safer than by rail or truck. What you're calling "temporary" in the case of the Keystone pipeline would perhaps be in excess of 100 years, if you mean how long there will be beneficial economic effects from having the pipeline in operation.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;442148]You don't read much about "peak oil" anymore. The recent reputable forecasts I've seen for energy consumption show worldwide oil, natural gas and coal production increasing for many years in the future. The U.S. EIA forecasts renewables will only be 10% of total USA energy consumption in 2040, up from 8% in 2012.

As to Jackson's point, I know you're not a communist, so what are you proposing? Should government mandate or otherwise ensure that oil, gas and pipeline companies not spend money on exploration, production and infrastructure because it's a dying industry? Jimmy Carter had the same idea about natural gas, and used price controls to shut down investment. He was very wrong. Considering what's happened in the oil and gas industry over the last 5 or 10 years, the large increases in production, I don't understand the basis for your beliefs.[/QUOTE]I just think it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We could easily move away from oil. It would take time, and there would be some short-term economic, but I believe it would be the right thing to do, including economically if you look at the fairly long-term (say 50 years). But as Keynes said, in the very long run everyone is dead, so there is no real motivation to take the steps to move toward renewables with any sense of commitment. The government is beholden to the oil industry, certainly. So not only do you have massive political pressure to continue to extract fossil fuels, you have the reality that they remain relatively cheap in the short run. Conservatives say that liberals are mortgaging the next generation's future with debt. Liberals say that conservatives are mortgaging the next generation's future environmentally.

But government mandates and price controls, certainly not. You know I would never favor price controls. Even more heinous would be trying to influence the direction of the focus of R & D, at least if you believe the private sector is best at development, which I certainly do. I'd look for the court of public opinion, in the form of the minds of the younger generation, to be the catalyst for real change in energy policy. If you want a short term, interventionist, Keynesian suggestion, I'd favor an up-front tax credit or penalty on new car purchases. Figure the current mileage of the US fleet, add X% to it to make it a goal for improvement, and that mileage would have a neutral tax. Purchasing a new vehicle with better mileage than the target figure would result in a credit and purchasing one with worse mileage would lead to a tax or surcharge. Make it a big one, like three or four thousand dollars for purchasing a car with twice the target mileage. Something like that. And as we know, new car purchases have a ripple effect through the economy. Emissions would fall as mileage rose. Rich people love tax credits and would buy luxury hybrids.

Of course wind energy looks good to me because of the part of the country I live in, but I do think it has potential, especially for some of the smaller co-ops that we have around here. You don't want to pump an industry up with credits too much because then you don't know if it would sink or swim on its own, but maybe a subsidy at the consumer level would encourage more wide-spread adoption and give the utilities more critical mass and economies of scale. Another measure I would favor would be basing the cost of a car's license plates on miles driven (which would not rule out a property-type tax based on value; that is a different discussion).

Wow Im an ---- obtuse pinhead.

The Canadian oil could be shipped by rail or truck to the refineries. Also theres refineries in other states like Ohio and Penn. Etc. That are a lot closer. Theres no reason to ship it to Louisiana or Texas.

We have enough oil and natural gas in the USA to last us 100 years. Theres no reason to mess up the environment in all those states by building this pipeline.

Guys try not to have a hissy fit over this.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;442150]It doesn't work that way. The owners of the pipeline would have to show that they lack significant market power, in order to set rates at the level they want. Otherwise, the rates will be set based on cost service, plus a reasonable rate of return on investment. This is regulated by FERC. If the owners of the pipeline engage in rent-seeking behavior then their customers will pursue a remedy through legal and regulatory means.[/QUOTE]In theory. In practice, there is a well-known tendency of regulated utilities to "capture the regulators" so pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about that. The customers will pursue remedies against a system that is rigged against them, as always.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;442150]I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you wouldn't argue that people should ride around in horse-drawn buggies when technology exists for automobiles. Transportation of oil by pipeline is much cheaper and also safer than by rail or truck. What you're calling "temporary" in the case of the Keystone pipeline is in excess of 100 years, if you mean how long there will be beneficial effects from having the pipeline in operation.[/QUOTE]Well, pipelines are the horses and buggies and alternative energy is the automobile, to continue your analogy, but I am only referring to the construction and related employment as being fairly temporary, not the purported benefits of the pipeline. You and I won't live long enough to find out, but I say that, while I'm sure it's accurate that pipelines are safer than trucks, that type of thinking will prove to have been similar to trying to make safer horse-and-buggies circa say 1920 or so.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442151] If you want a short term, interventionist, Keynesian suggestion, I'd favor an up-front tax credit or penalty on new car purchases. Figure the current mileage of the US fleet, add X% to it to make it a goal for improvement, and that mileage would have a neutral tax. Purchasing a new vehicle with better mileage than the target figure would result in a credit and purchasing one with worse mileage would lead to a tax or surcharge. Make it a big one, like three or four thousand dollars for purchasing a car with twice the target mileage. Something like that. And as we know, new car purchases have a ripple effect through the economy. Emissions would fall as mileage rose. Rich people love tax credits and would buy luxury hybrids.[/QUOTE]Or just increase the tax on gasoline, if it's matched by an equivalent decrease in the income tax. That or your suggestion would be better IMHO than government mandates for miles per gallon for vehicles, like what we've got now.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442151]
Of course wind energy looks good to me because of the part of the country I live in, but I do think it has potential, especially for some of the smaller co-ops that we have around here. You don't want to pump an industry up with credits too much because then you don't know if it would sink or swim on its own, but maybe a subsidy at the consumer level would encourage more wide-spread adoption and give the utilities more critical mass and economies of scale. Another measure I would favor would be basing the cost of a car's license plates on miles driven (which would not rule out a property-type tax based on value; that is a different discussion).[/QUOTE]

Wind is already getting a lot of subsidies, although I think Congress has been renewing that for new projects on a year-by-year basis. On days when there's low demand for electricity in certain parts of Texas, wind generators actually sometimes pay to put electricity into the grid, instead of receiving revenues from the power they're producing. They do this because, say, they're getting a 2 cent per kilowatt hour subsidy or tax credit they can sell, and only have to pay a penny a kilowatt hour to get the grid to accept the power. So it makes more sense to keep operating, instead of shutting down and saving the wear and tear on the equipment. This appears to me to be a waste of the taxpayers' money.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;442152]Wow Im an ---- obtuse pinhead.

The Canadian oil could be shipped by rail or truck to the refineries. Also theres refineries in other states like Ohio and Penn. Etc. That are a lot closer. Theres no reason to ship it to Louisiana or Texas.

We have enough oil and natural gas in the USA to last us 100 years. Theres no reason to mess up the environment in all those states by building this pipeline.

Guys try not to have a hissy fit over this.[/QUOTE]There are refineries in China and eastern Canada, and actually that's where the oil will go in the longer term without Keystone. What you say about natural gas is probably correct. We will always be net importers of oil though.

Are you the son of World Travel 69? Just wondering as he's from the bay area, and also believes the most important goal of the federal government should be to screw the Texans and the southerners.

Increasing the gasoline tax would be regressive and would be less likely to get gas guzzlers off the road in the short term. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I bet the very poor, say the poorest quintile of all drivers, drive cars with [B]below[/B] average gas mileage, cuz they are stuck with them. Maybe, to help get them out of those cars that are harming those who do NOT drive them, my credit could also apply to used cars as long as the newer car represented an X% improvement in mileage and the old car was put in the crusher. That might drive up the price of used cars, though.

Credits work faster than changes in tax rates and so are the superior fiscal tool, in my opinion. I should add that reducing the age of the fleet on the road will have ancillary benefits in terms of safety, and the states' coffers may benefit because newer cars pay higher registration fees (and of course in most states there would be sales tax revenues on purchase as well).

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/midterm-disaster-rips-apart-awkward-ties-between-obama-and-senate-democrats/2014/11/05/5bdd257a-650e-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html?tid=pm_pop[/URL]

In politics, once in power, there really is very little difference between a GOP or a Democratic president. They are beholden to Big Business. All the big players donate to both parties & candidates. And so you better know how to play the game as good as Bill Clinton did. A man of loose morals, that is the type of president that America needs. Say what? Just in case you didn't know, the Clintons are the poster couple for Corporate America. And in Obama, the Financial Lobby had a true friend.

When the very, very, very, junior Senator Obama leapfrogged Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, he upended the Democratic hierarchy. Both Reid & Pelosi and a few others were powerful and they were not going to just bend over. They had their fiefdom and ambitions to protect. Publicly, they were embracing each, of course. Never mind, the one-term goal that the GOP had proclaimed. As the financial crisis hit, Obama found himself a juggling act of the highest order. What a legacy Bush bestow on Obama!!! No wonder he is doing so much painting, he needed to hide himself from the public eye.

And so we march forward, Boehner warns Obama "not to poison the well". Too late, the well has already been poisoned. How can you tell? Just count how many medications you have prescriptions for. What? You say you never felt so good? Then, great for you.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442156]Maybe, to help get them out of those cars that are harming those who do NOT drive them, my credit could also apply to used cars as long as the newer car represented an X% improvement in mileage and the old car was put in the crusher.[/QUOTE]Isn't that what "Cash for Clunkers" was supposed to do?

BTW, has anyone seen or heard from Debbie "Screech" Wasserman-Schmutz?

ROTFLMAO!

Jax

[QUOTE=Jackson;442158]Isn't that what "Cash for Clunkers" was supposed to do?

BTW, has anyone seen or heard from Debbie "Screech" Wasserman-Schmutz?

ROTFLMAO!

Jax[/QUOTE]I don't know who that is but the difference in C4C and what I envision is that C4C was short-term and limited. That meant that a lot of the people who participated were merely accelerating a purchase they would have made anyway. That was okay from a fiscal stimulus standpoint but suboptimal from an energy policy standpoint. What I propose would work best if it was permanent or at least fairly long-term. You know in your heart we could improve the mileage of the US fleet 20% or more in 5 years or less. Focus on some similar goal. The EPA mileage standards force manufacturers to produce higher mileage cars. I would prefer that consumers demand higher mileage cars. Targeting the end consumer with a subsidy is superior to threatening the producer with a penalty.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442132]Jackson, you were exactly correct in stating Esten needed to get direction from the DNC before he could respond, nearly word for word response from the DNC.[/QUOTE]Actually I speak for myself. If my comments are similar to others, they are likely just looking at the same set of facts.

About the DNC though, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go. She has never been a great face of the party, and she failed at coordinating a clear unified message for Democrats this year. It will be a mistake to keep her on.

BTW Doppel, I still haven't seen you THANK Obama for his tax policies that are helping you BIG TIME, saving you almost $20,000 a year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

[QUOTE=Esten;442164] the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012[/QUOTE]Otherwise known as the Dickhead Immediate Retirement Act! Do I thank Bush for the reverse Robin Hood tax cuts or Obama for extending them? Thanks to both of them! Retirement is awesome! Harvesting massive amounts of capital gains at 0% federal rates while obtaining hugely subsidized health care is awesome! Now I get free drugs too! And I have a free car!

So I'd like to thank myself for working hard for 40 years, [B]and[/B] I would like to thank the combination of the Bush tax cuts, the ATRA's extension of them, the Affordable Care Act, and the late Senator William V. Roth, Jr. of Delaware for making it so I didn't have to work 10 or 12 more years.

But today I found out you fucks cut my health insurance subsidy by $75 a month. That is really a shame because as my New Year's resolution I have promised to donate my entire 2015 health care subsidy to qualified and needy prostitutes throughout Latin America and southern Europe, so by cutting my subsidy you are just taking bread out of these poor women's mouths. I guess I will just have to make up for this lack of nourishment by giving them extra [I]leche[/I].

[QUOTE=Esten;442164]BTW Doppel, I still haven't seen you THANK Obama for his tax policies that are helping you BIG TIME, saving you almost $20,000 a year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.[/QUOTE]Obama saved me much, much more than that. My 2013 taxes were about 20% of what I paid for 2012. That is, they were about 80% less. This is because I decided if the mother fuckers in Washington are going to tax me at a rate of 43.4%, in addition to what I gladly (honestly) pay state and local governments, then I'm going to quit working. Or at least cut way back. Thank you President Obama!!!