Warszawa wrote:

Bush would veto U.S. climate change bill
"I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans"

Umm...right. You got that one covered chief.

LOL

Iraq alone is like a trillion decillion per day

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Young is the one who has the real primary challenger. Stevens is in trouble for sure, but he has a real Dem opponent, in the Mayor of Anchorage. I don't think his no name GOP opponent would stroll against him. Frankly, Stevens is probably the GOP's best shot of holding that seat, if the filing deadline is passed. The man's an institution, even if he's an institution who's under federal investigation.

I defer to you on this one, since I'm pretty sure you're paying closer attention. I just figured that with the corruption allegations but the state's built-in Republican tilt--Palin certainly seems to be popular--getting rid of the ethically troubled guy would help. (Since you guys often bring up Bob Torricelli, who was indeed slimy, maybe we can name this phenomenon after him.) But it's true that Begich (?) seems like a serious contender, maybe strong enough to win against some no-name.

The difference between Torricelli and Stevens (not that you were directly comparing them) is Stevens has been elected from the state since the 1960s and Torricelli had won statewide once before his implosion. Something like that gives him a built up store of goodwill. He's hasn't won less than 66% of the vote since his initial election.

And while crap like the Bridge to Nowhere goes over like a lead balloon here, they love their pork barrel politics in Alaska. Stevens, as the ranking member on Appropriations, is good at getting it for them.

Again, this isn't to say Stevens isn't in trouble. Polling has indicated that he is, and in this year just about everyone with an R after their name is in some sort of danger, but I'd still be surprised if he lost.

The problem in Alaska is the party that is popular and the party that is unpopular are the two different wings of the GOP. And the popular wing is much, much smaller. Palin beat Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) in the primary in 2006. Murkowski was previously the Senator from the state, and appointed his daughter (a Hoya) to his seat upon him resigning it. Don Young, the state's only House member, is caught up in the same scandal Stevens is. Stevens' son, who I think was the state Senate Majority Leader or something like that, is also enveloped in the scandal, along with other legislators. Parnell, who is the LG, is challenging Young with the backing of Palin on the idea that Young is easier to knock off than Stevens, I think. There really aren't that many viable GOP candidates in the state. I mean, only 600k people live there. It's a congressional district.

It's also worth throwing out there that he's an embarrassment to the national party on any number of levels. But not so much that losing his seat would be a good thing, I don't think. At least until he gets indicted, at which point all bets are off.

Woody wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

Bush would veto U.S. climate change bill
"I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans"

Umm...right. You got that one covered chief.

LOL

Iraq alone is like a trillion decillion per day

The estimates of cap and trade costs are that it will cut US GDP by 0.5-2.0% by 2030. Opponents say it could be as much as 7% of GDP by 2050.

To put real numbers on that, assuming 2% real growth rate, the first range is 105-420 billion. The second number is 2.2 trillion dollars. This an amount of money that will not exist in the US economy, on a yearly basis, forever. I think those figures are real 2006 dollars, but I'm not 100% sure. I was always bad at that in econ.

Now if the costs of not dealing with global warming are a lot higher, then that's a decent argument, I guess. But those are pretty enormous costs to the economy. Perhaps worth not mocking. Even discussing actually.

Dude that's a lot less than a decillion trillion

When you're right, you're right, Woody. I can't argue with that.

My mockery and point wasn't so much about climate bills being cheap. Certainly it would have ramifications for the country and the economy. My point was more about his seemingly disengenious comment about saving Americans future costs. As if he truly cares.

It's not really disingenuous. I think Bush really thinks it's more important that we focus on economic growth than on cutting carbon emissions. He thinks the costs of cutting the emissions aren't worth it in the long run, and that it's wrong to impose them on future generations.

In Bush's mind -
Costs for war in Iraq are more important than avoiding budget deficits

The cost for cap and trade makes it less important than long term economic growth

He has different priorities than you do. They might be wrong. He's not being disingenuous.

I don't know enough about this as I should, and presumably I'll address that at some point... but I've read that a straight tax on carbon would be more efficient than cap and trade. Certainly in terms of disincentivizing the behavior, that makes sense. But it might be too disruptive to the economy to get passed politically.

The real problem is that the Democrats are so invested in running against "the high cost of gas" that they miss the larger goo-goo point: it's only through the high cost of gas that we get to needed behavior change. Less driving, more transit usage (and better systems), higher-mileage vehicles and ginormous investment in alternatives are the necessary steps.

The Bush Republicans, "governing" only with an eye to keeping and expanding power, never were going to reach this conclusion. McCain certainly might, and Obama probably would.

Really at this point, I'm interested to see what would happen if the politicians just did nothing. Gas prices are getting towards a pretty punitive level, and there's no reason to believe they're gonna turn around any time soon. An increase in the gas tax, while a good idea almost any way you look at it economically or environmentally, is politically DOA. So this cap and trade thing, which I also know way less than I should about, comes along, and since it's too complex to explain in a sentence or two, it has a chance of passing. But the way people are adjusting, by buying cars that are getting better gas mileage, maybe this is something that is working itself out on its own. Maybe. At least on the consumer level. Obviously there are a ton of other contributors to emissions that need to be harnessed if we're going to make long term strides on this.

Perhaps with no hockey on tonight, and no booze consumption on my to do list, I can read an article or two about it by someone who isn't a member of the VRWC and see what I actually think about all of this.

jerseyhoya wrote:Perhaps with no hockey on tonight, and no booze consumption on my to do list, I can read an article or two about it by someone who isn't a member of the VRWC and see what I actually think about all of this.

If you find some good ones, please link them here.

(Also, y'know, the Phils are playing and there will be primary results. So if you're looking for a reason to drink, those are some good ones. If Obama clinches, I can promise I'll be consuming some alcoholic cold beverages. Just sayin'.)

I've got an idea. How bout we find out if carbon offsets actually accomplish something first?

dajafi wrote:I don't know enough about this as I should, and presumably I'll address that at some point... but I've read that a straight tax on carbon would be more efficient than cap and trade. Certainly in terms of disincentivizing the behavior, that makes sense. But it might be too disruptive to the economy to get passed politically.

The real problem is that the Democrats are so invested in running against "the high cost of gas" that they miss the larger goo-goo point: it's only through the high cost of gas that we get to needed behavior change. Less driving, more transit usage (and better systems), higher-mileage vehicles and ginormous investment in alternatives are the necessary steps.

The Bush Republicans, "governing" only with an eye to keeping and expanding power, never were going to reach this conclusion. McCain certainly might, and Obama probably would.

I wish Obama would give one of his Kennedy like speeches and challenge this country to be completely off oil by say.... 2020. Then you won't have to worry about emmissions, the middle east, gas prices, carbon credits, etc. At least McCain has mentioned that he would make getting off oil a major priority in his administration. And am i wrong to think that creating alternative energy sources would create huge new economic windfalls?

Debbie F. wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

dajafi wrote:A poll came out today giving the Clintons an enormous lead in South Dakota. Seems unlikely to me, but who knows. Nate Silver comments here.

ARG poll: May 31-June 1

Montana: Clinton 44%, Obama 48%, Undecided 8%

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 56% to 35% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 52% to 41%.

Obama leads 49% to 45% among voters age 18 to 49 (44% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads 48% to 43% among voters age 50 and older.





South Dakota: Clinton 60%, Obama 34%, Undecided 6%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 56% to 39% among men (46% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 63% to 29%.

Clinton leads 57% to 38% among voters age 18 to 49 (46% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 63% to 30% among voters age 50 and older.

Why is there such a huge disparity in these races? I thought, evidently incorrectly, that SD and Montana would have similar constituencies with similar concerns. It does not appear that one state is older and one state younger or that one state is more male or female than the other...the winning candidate wins in all of those demographics in each state. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that there is not a large African American population in either state. So why the big difference? Or, does this boil down to a problem with the poll?

One possible explaination I've seen mentioned something about neighboring counties of the bordering states. IIRC, ARG's polls have either been way off the mark or close to dead on, depending on how close to the election. But their's was either the only poll or the latest poll at the time of my post.

Another explaination may be that some Democrats are experiencing some "buyer's remorse". Here's a link to two statistical analysis articles of recent Dem primary demographics...Statistical work from Paul Lukasiak on Obama’s declining support since February 19, when Obama became the "inevitable nominee". Lots o' charts, graphs, stats, etc. indicating that Obama has lost support from virtually all demographics (race, income, education, etc.) except African Americans. Granted, the race is over, Obama's the nominee, so I have no idea how this will translate to the general election. Obviously, a lot of the Clinton votes will go Obama (Dems voting Dem), what will likely determine the outcome is how many of them will either go McCain or not vote at all and how the non-party-liners will go.

I did an electoral college map yesterday using the latest per state head to head polling results. Clinton beat McCain with 297. Obama/McCain literally came down to Ohio, which is a virtual tie but trending McCain. Sure it's early, 5 months till November. IMO, still too early as anything can happen, either can implode or surge. But it's looking like it'll be a tough road for Obama, he can't afford any missteps or mistakes, and it's possible any new "Rev. Wright"-type revelation that comes to light in the coming months can sink him.

Warszawa wrote:

dajafi wrote:I don't know enough about this as I should, and presumably I'll address that at some point... but I've read that a straight tax on carbon would be more efficient than cap and trade. Certainly in terms of disincentivizing the behavior, that makes sense. But it might be too disruptive to the economy to get passed politically.

The real problem is that the Democrats are so invested in running against "the high cost of gas" that they miss the larger goo-goo point: it's only through the high cost of gas that we get to needed behavior change. Less driving, more transit usage (and better systems), higher-mileage vehicles and ginormous investment in alternatives are the necessary steps.

The Bush Republicans, "governing" only with an eye to keeping and expanding power, never were going to reach this conclusion. McCain certainly might, and Obama probably would.

I wish Obama would give one of his Kennedy like speeches and challenge this country to be completely off oil by say.... 2020. Then you won't have to worry about emmissions, the middle east, gas prices, carbon credits, etc. At least McCain has mentioned that he would make getting off oil a major priority in his administration. And am i wrong to think that creating alternative energy sources would create huge new economic windfalls?

Yes it would, I'm sure, similar to the economic boondoggle that put Neil Armstrong on Tranquility Base*.

The earth really needs something like the scenario you have proposed.

Has McCain really, sincerely, stated what you said?? That would be pretty cool, too. I'd like to see his plan.


*- I reread this and it could sound like sarcasm, but it's not. NASA created pork all over the country to make Apollo happen. That's the reason the jet propulsion laboratory is in CA, the launch site is in FLA, and mission control is in Houston. P-erfect (probably only good) use of pork barrel appropriations.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
I did an electoral college map yesterday using the latest per state head to head polling results. Clinton beat McCain with 297. Obama/McCain literally came down to Ohio, which is a virtual tie but trending McCain. Sure it's early, 5 months till November. IMO, still too early as anything can happen, either can implode or surge. But it's looking like it'll be a tough road for Obama, he can't afford any missteps or mistakes, and it's possible any new "Rev. Wright"-type revelation that comes to light in the coming months can sink him.

You'd like that... wouldn't you?

Warszawa wrote:And am i wrong to think that creating alternative energy sources would create huge new economic windfalls?

Of course it would. The problem is the power of the folks who benefit from the current system.

Warszawa wrote:I wish Obama would give one of his Kennedy like speeches and challenge this country to be completely off oil by say.... 2020. Then you won't have to worry about emmissions, the middle east, gas prices, carbon credits, etc. At least McCain has mentioned that he would make getting off oil a major priority in his administration.

Every president since Jimmy Carter has declared that he would make it a priority to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, and under every president since Jimmy Carter our dependence on foreign oil has increased. What would really be great is if either candidate had the guts to tell Americans the truth: that dependence on foreign oil will increase during his presidency.

Warszawa wrote:And am i wrong to think that creating alternative energy sources would create huge new economic windfalls?

We should create warp-drive and anti-gravity machines instead. They would have more of an economic windfall.

teleportation devices and time machines would be the best route, imo

The Red Tornado wrote:teleportation devices and time machines would be the best route, imo

No doubt.

dajafi wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:teleportation devices and time machines would be the best route, imo

No doubt.

Frozen donkey wheels and flux capacitors for all.