Thread: VP Debate

i hope u all realize that its gonna be the younger vote who decides this election...and the younger vote favors kerry.......and how are u gonna not gonna sign on for meals on wheels and a holidy for MLK day? repubs just lost the black vote...lol

Originally Posted by dg806

Honestly, this whole "Republicans love big Business" thing is just fucking retarded.

This is nothing more than a rant. Republican's love big business and on a number of occassions have placed corporate profit over the safety of Americans. The Bush supporters will obviously contest this view so let's look at some examples:-

--------------

RULE: Bush Rolled Back Mercury Regulations. According to the New York Times, the White House staff deleted or modified language in the mercury emissions proposal to minimize the health risks posed by the toxic chemical. Science panel members "were concerned because the White House almost uniformly minimized the health risks in instances where there could be disagreement." George Bush further caved to industry pressure and proposed to defer controls on mercury emissions by power plants for at least a decade. (New York Times, 4/7/04)

-- INTEREST: Coal Mining Industry Gave Hundreds of Thousands to Bush Campaigns. George Bush has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the coal mining industry. So far, Bush-Cheney has received over $300,000 from the mining industry. According to a Washington Post analysis, "a side-by-side comparison of one of the three proposed rules and the memorandums prepared by Latham & Watkins, one of Washington's premier corporate environmental law firms, shows that at least a dozen paragraphs were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from the industry suggestions." ( http://www.crp.org ; Public Citizen; Washington Post, 1/31/04)

RULE: Bush Eased New Source Regulations to Protect Polluters. Rather than enforce the law and force utilities and other sources to reduce harmful emissions, George Bush has gutted the Clean Air Act by creating a huge new loophole that will enable dirty, old plants to continue to operate without controlling emissions. The Baltimore Sun reported, "Yesterday, the Bush administration essentially sided with industry and handed power plants and other facilities the flexibility they have sought. The EPA said it was clarifying 'routine maintenance' so facilities could spend up to 20 percent of the value of their primary equipment in any single renovation, without triggering new source review." (Baltimore Sun, 8/28/03)

-- INTEREST: 61 Pioneers Were From The Energy and Natural Resources Industry. 61 Pioneers, each of whom pledged to raise $100,000 for Bushs 2000 campaign were from the Energy and Natural Resources industry. Five of these Pioneers, including Edison Electric Institute President Thomas Kuhn, were appointed to Bush's energy transition team. (White House For Sale, http://www.whitehouseforsale.org )

RULE: Bush Eased Logging Regulations and Eliminated Environmental Reviews. George Bush eased rules for lumber and paper companies to log in federal forests. "The administration at the request of lumber and paper companies, gave Forest Service managers the right to approve logging in federal forests without the usual environmental reviews." (New York Times, 8/14/04)

-- INTEREST: Lumber and Timber Industry Gave Millions to Bush. The lumber and timber industry have been substantial donors to the Bush-Cheney campaigns. They gave over $3 million to the 2004 effort and $1 million in 2000. Additionally, Mark Rey, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, was a lobbyist for the paper and logging Industries. ( http://www.publiccampaign.org ; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 8/21/03)

RULE: Bush Extended Truck Driving Hours. The Bush administration extended the hours that truck drivers are allowed to drive at a stretch. "The change would increase allowable driving time from 10 hours without a break to 11 hours...Trucking companies said they were satisfied with the rule while truck drivers deplored it, saying the added hours of driving time would increase driver fatigue." (New York Times, 8/14/04)

-- INTEREST: Leaders of the Trucking Industry Support GOP. Walter B. McCormack, of the American Trucking Association, which gave $836,511 to GOP candidates and committees in 1999-2000 -- $526,985 to GOP candidates and $309,526 to GOP committees -- served on the Bush Administration's Transportation Department transition team. ( http://www.tray.com ; http://www.crp.org )

--------------

Another example of favoring big business this time by the use of tax breaks was highlighted in The Hill a couple of years ago:-



Unnoticed executive orders give corporations billions in tax breaks
by Alexander Bolton, The Hill - July 23, 2002
In a series of little-noticed executive orders intended to ease the tax burden on corporate America, the Bush administration has implemented a number of new policies that will provide corporations with billions of dollars in tax relief without the consent of Congress.

The actions include new regulations, notices of new rulemaking, and tax collection policies on issues ranging from tax-free compensation for corporate executives to tax deductions for “intangible” assets to greatly expanded tax accounting flexibility for small- and medium-sized businesses. Many of the business-oriented actions taken by the Treasury Department since the beginning of the year are so arcane that few members of Congress, including those with jurisdiction over tax policy, were familiar with the new regulations and revenue procedures. When asked about the new policies implemented by the Treasury Department, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he was not familiar with them.



--------------

Yet another example was the Bush Administration's formulation of energy policy which was essentially outsourced to companies like Enron. Details of the investigation of the Energy Taskforce can be found here: - http://www.house.gov/commerce_democr...askforce.shtml
Unfortunately Federal judges are allowing Cheney to suppress the details of how policies were developed so they're off the hook.

-------------

Democrats are also heavily funded by corporate donors, but not to the extent of the Bush administration.

The level of cronyism in the Bush administration is unbelievable. The same is true of ethics violations.

Meals for Wheels? Those lazy assed old people need to get up and cook for themselves and MLK was a commie that saw every person as an equal and wanted non-violent resolutions, not exactly good for our miltant-economy.

thats the reason why u lost the black vote...rest my case..unless this was sarcasam....lol

Of course it was sarcasm, ManicLion the tree-hugging, poor aiding, terorist supporting Earth Muffin would never share the views of a CON-servative.

Uhhh ... wanna bet?

What about a tree hugging conservative?

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

What about a tree hugging conservative?

They don't exist. Trees are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Just ask the logging industry.

*BoneCrusher disappears in a puff of logic*

Cheney said go to Factcheck.com(really .org), here you go.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=272

Originally Posted by redspy

This is nothing more than a rant. Republican's love big business and on a number of occassions have placed corporate profit over the safety of Americans. The Bush supporters will obviously contest this view so let's look at some examples:-

--------------

RULE: Bush Rolled Back Mercury Regulations. According to the New York Times, the White House staff deleted or modified language in the mercury emissions proposal to minimize the health risks posed by the toxic chemical. Science panel members "were concerned because the White House almost uniformly minimized the health risks in instances where there could be disagreement." George Bush further caved to industry pressure and proposed to defer controls on mercury emissions by power plants for at least a decade. (New York Times, 4/7/04)


RULE: Bush Eased New Source Regulations to Protect Polluters. Rather than enforce the law and force utilities and other sources to reduce harmful emissions, George Bush has gutted the Clean Air Act by creating a huge new loophole that will enable dirty, old plants to continue to operate without controlling emissions. The Baltimore Sun reported, "Yesterday, the Bush administration essentially sided with industry and handed power plants and other facilities the flexibility they have sought. The EPA said it was clarifying 'routine maintenance' so facilities could spend up to 20 percent of the value of their primary equipment in any single renovation, without triggering new source review." (Baltimore Sun, 8/28/03)

Hi Redspy,

I only have time to try to discuss one of these now.

Situation on most of the above was as follows (more info is posted at the sierra Club link that you or Bone gave me before).

When utilities are publicly regulated, they are required to provide adequate capacity to handle any electrical needs that may arise.
However, in a private supplier or deregulated industry, the private suppliers like Enron et al could care less about handling peak needs. To maximize profit, you just want to run your plants and 100% of capacity at all times.
You can relate. You buy a car to handle your driving needs. But if you were regulated, the regulators would require you to buy an extra car in case someone came over to visit. It drives up your cost for something that may or may not happen.

By going private with electrical deregulation, no one was planning for long term growth and the companies were shutting down old coal fired plants because it cost too much for them to meet the new EPA mercury levels, or whatever other pollution controls had been imposed on them.

Now the situation. ENERGY SHORTAGE How do you handle it ?
Either of the following:
. 1) decrease usage
. 2) increase electrical production by
. a) building new plants (takes a long time to get thru)
. b) re-open recently closed old plants (short time)

With the high prices, everbody was cutting back on useage already. So they had to increase production. new plants would take 4 to 7 years if at all. The private industry did not or could not open old plants due to the EPA rules on mercury in the emmissions or other pollution.

So . . . you either let their be brown outs like we had in California, or you waive the EPA rules until the new, more efficient plants can be built. In order to build the new plants quickly, you will probably need to waive the rules on environmental impact reports, public meetings to review the same, endangered habitat and species rules etcetera.

I personally think a Democrat would have done the same thing to avoid the brownouts. And if they didn't, then everyone would be even more pissed.

But the headline looks horrible and can seem like it is just to enrich Big Business.

The people that run these plants knew their situation and probably did cost projections and decided to wait until they had to be given the slack that you say they need. I don't agree with the need vs the environment theory you put up here and as I look at the stats I see that upgrades could be done to cover the eight year average it takes to get from site location to start-up. These upgrades should have been done long ago at a cheaper cost instead of being put off until they could buy their way out of them at the cost of the lives of their customers. I do not agree that the people around the plants, the air from the plants or the cities served by these plants should be killed to save these guys a buck. Let them eat their overhead like I have to eat mine. Cancer in the children of the locals is not acceptable as an argument or a solution.

If it was indeed killing people, I would agree. Stop it immediately. But that is not the case. They are merely talking about some acceptable level of mercury that someone thinks has long term detrimental effects on people.

Let bring to the BB arena.

The FDA warns us not to eat more than one can of tuna a day due to the mercury content in it. Yet, do you see any guys who are dieing due to mercury poisoning ? Health problems ? ? ? From steroids maybe.

There also seems to be a difference whether you get the mercury from plant or animal sources versus your environment. There are people on islands (gfish eating) who have mercury readings like 8 times higher than is supposed to be safe, yet they have no problems. However, other people do have problems with the levels slightly higher than the FDA warns us about. Similar to vitamins. If you eat your minerals in plant form it sustains your body. But if you scoop up some dirt out of your yard, you can not assimilate it. The plant seems break off individual ions and chelates them so our bodies can use them to build tissue or bone.

It is really complicated. That is why I wonder why people go into politics. YOu will never be able to make all of the people happy.

I just know I like to be able to turn on the lights to see my wifes naked body next to me. But then turn it off so no one else can.

Or you give huge tax credits for solar grid-tie systems, solar hot water systems and chill water systems and all of the many other alternatives, but not ethanol which takes more energy to make than it produces. "131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."

Originally Posted by milliman

If it was indeed killing people, I would agree. Stop it immediately. But that is not the case. They are merely talking about some acceptable level of mercury that someone thinks has long term detrimental effects on people.

Let bring to the BB arena.

The FDA warns us not to eat more than one can of tuna a day due to the mercury content in it. Yet, do you see any guys who are dieing due to mercury poisoning ? Health problems ? ? ? From steroids maybe.

There also seems to be a difference whether you get the mercury from plant or animal sources versus your environment. There are people on islands (gfish eating) who have mercury readings like 8 times higher than is supposed to be safe, yet they have no problems. However, other people do have problems with the levels slightly higher than the FDA warns us about. Similar to vitamins. If you eat your minerals in plant form it sustains your body. But if you scoop up some dirt out of your yard, you can not assimilate it. The plant seems break off individual ions and chelates them so our bodies can use them to build tissue or bone.

It is really complicated. That is why I wonder why people go into politics. YOu will never be able to make all of the people happy.

I just know I like to be able to turn on the lights to see my wifes naked body next to me. But then turn it off so no one else can.

For a person so good at communicating you have a hard time listening. Increased mercury levels in the ground table will and have killed people. That is the long and short of it. Theses elevated levels are not a temporary thing that gets absorbed in a couple of months. Mercury sits there for centuries untill something moves it or it goes through a change of state and adheres to a solid. The levels set by the fed are already considered too low. . Now these low levels have been made as though to not exist. Nah dude you need to do a humanity check and re-think what planet you want to leave behind. I want one that does not kill my grand kids. Leaving them an ozone would be nice too.

Originally Posted by maniclion

Or you give huge tax credits for solar grid-tie systems, solar hot water systems and chill water systems and all of the many other alternatives, but not ethanol which takes more energy to make than it produces. "131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."

This is what they call a tax loophole, or welfare for the rich, since it applies to just a small select group of people. Maniclion, you can't be advocating that can you. You would sound like a Republican.

But lets digress. Tax credits were used to encourage people to buy stuff that was not economically feasible yet. Like solar water heating or solar energy systems. By economically feasible, I mean other stuff was cheaper to make and more efficient. But if you give someone a credit (that is like cash), the government can level the cost problem. But who gets these credits and for what technology ?

Now the politics, and monetary contributions come in, which can make a reasonable person do unreasonable things.

By the way, did you know that if your receive a politcial contribution and you do not use it by the time you go out of office, you get to keep it. Not all contributions are bad either, but is hard to make an unbiased decision when money is going into your pocket. Just because some guy wants to present his technology to you is not bad. The politician has to weigh the merits of it, like your BTU stuff above. By the way, that BTu stuff went way over my head.

Also, if it is strictly majority vote, you can get weird results too. Like here in California. So Calif has most of the people and they want lots of money spent to ship water down here from No Calif. No Calif says FU, but we have more votes. So courts had to step in and it goes on and on . . . what a mess.

The best way to observe a debate is by READING the transcripts. Not "watching" it.

Bush supporters will think Cheney was the winner.

Kerry supporters will think Edwars was the winner.

Milliman your posts are starting to paint a picture. Tax credits for the big guys are not very useful an do not amount to much really. Rasing the acceptable levels of toxins and polluntants in our air and water are OK on a temporary basis. We as consumers should take it in the shorts for the electric company. It is normal for Bush to get big money from these same companies and then redo the rules in their favor. Your an under cover spy from the PAC's working a contract with BushCo to diseminate propaganda 'til after the election is over aintchya? Hunh?? I got your number dude and I am calling my cousin over at GreenPeace to come and build a monument to dolphins in your front yard.

Originally Posted by milliman

This is what they call a tax loophole, or welfare for the rich, since it applies to just a small select group of people. Maniclion, you can't be advocating that can you. You would sound like a Republican.

But lets digress. Tax credits were used to encourage people to buy stuff that was not economically feasible yet. Like solar water heating or solar energy systems. By economically feasible, I mean other stuff was cheaper to make and more efficient. But if you give someone a credit (that is like cash), the government can level the cost problem. But who gets these credits and for what technology ?

Hello my name is Kevin and I am a solar applications consultant. Solar Hot Water tax credits and utility credits ease the burden on utilties during peak hours (evenings showers, dishwashing) 50+% of most electric bills are from heating water.

Milliman

At some point this country has to face the fact that's things are completely unsustainable at the current rate. Many people seem to think they have a constitutional right to drive a V8 400hp truck and screw the environment. Maybe it's because I have a son but I think about what kind of world he will inherit. Currently the prospects aren't good. Our atmosphere is progressively more polluted, our seas are being over fished and have high heavy metals rates, and our natural resources are being exploited at an accelerated rate. Personally I would accept slightly lower economic growth for a more sustainable existence. Big business shouldn’t have the right to trample over our environment just to please some investors on Wall St.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Your an under cover spy from the PAC's working a contract with BushCo to diseminate propaganda 'til after the election is over aintchya? Hunh?? I got your number dude and I am calling my cousin over at GreenPeace to come and build a monument to dolphins in your front yard.

Originally Posted by redspy

Milliman

At some point this country has to face the fact that's things are completely unsustainable at the current rate. Many people seem to think they have a constitutional right to drive a V8 400hp truck and screw the environment. Maybe it's because I have a son but I think about what kind of world he will inherit. Currently the prospects aren't good. Our atmosphere is progressively more polluted, our seas are being over fished and have high heavy metals rates, and our natural resources are being exploited at an accelerated rate. Personally I would accept slightly lower economic growth for a more sustainable existence. Big business shouldn’t have the right to trample over our environment just to please some investors on Wall St.

You are right, I agree with you. But at what cost and when. Making all new lawn mowers with pollution controls is more palatable than forcing people to retrofit old mowers with them at a high cost. To me, prospective (future) fixes arer better than retroactive ones.

ps: There is nothing like the feeling of a 400hp V8 pushing you back in the seat of your car.
. I NEED IT ! ! !

Originally Posted by milliman

ps: There is nothing like the feeling of a 400hp V8 pushing you back in the seat of your car.
. I NEED IT ! ! !

There's nothing like landing in LAX from Hawaii and seeing that beautiful yellow-brown haze in the sky.

Originally Posted by maniclion

There's nothing like landing in LAX from Hawaii and seeing that beautiful yellow-brown haze in the sky.

I didn't know Gr81 lived in LAX. Toke it up foo, toke it up.

Originally Posted by maniclion

There's nothing like landing in LAX from Hawaii and seeing that beautiful yellow-brown haze in the sky.

It brings tears to my eyes !


No, literally, it does. You drive up there and close your eyes on a bad smog day and your eyes have a slight burn. Although it is way better than when I was a kid.