farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 06:54 pm
@georgeob1,
The damn thing can go forward with a really competent siting study. Pwrhaps itll add (Or subtract) miles from the pipeline and itll certainly change its method of depoyment. Still, iy needs to be done. Im more pissed at the nyah nyah attitude of both sides which leads to stonewalling and stalemate.
WHere are the alternate routes and their analyses??

When I was part of the several studies for low level nuke waste (including Yucca mt) we had several optional sites and routes . AS it turned out politics ruled , Today intractable politics is the cause of nothing being done
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 07:46 pm
@Ceili,
I'm part of the problem? LOL Kiss me arse; you don't make any sense - common sense. Most in developed countries use energy. Is that news to you?
My use of gas in my car is a "fact" that seems to escape you! In other words, my use of fuel for my car in Silicon Valley is probably on the low side.

It's not a matter of building pipelines "very far from water" that has been pointed out by the Cornell U. article. It's about jobs and the environment.

I don't have any problem with the refineries in the south selling outside the US; where did you get such an idiotic idea?

You make a whole lots of assumptions without much outside credible source.

In other words, you're a ******* bore!



cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 07:49 pm
@Ceili,
You still "don't get it." It's not about just cleaning the oil in Canada, it's about the transfer of that oil in the US through pipelines. Look at the Cornell University study again; you might learn something important.

From MPOV, their study has more credibility than your opinions. That's a FACT. Live with it.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 07:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Re-read everything you wrote. Talk about a ******* bore...
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 07:52 pm
@Ceili,
Yea, I knew it; you can't handle facts from the Cornell University study. You think your opinion has any merit? Think again.

One more thing; you're like Sarah Palin. You think you're an expert in sand oil because you drank one glass of purified water from their site.

Get real!
Ceili
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
**** off you aged fool.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'd be careful with the Sarah Palin references, ci.

you kinda resemble that remark more than you realize...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:15 pm
@Rockhead,
I just don't give a s.....

Explain why?
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
no thanks.

I'm trying to quit...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:20 pm
Secretary of State said she takes full responsibility for what happened in Libya.

That's where the blame belongs; they're responsible for all the embassies.

Quote:
Clinton to CNN: ‘I take responsibility’ in Libya attack - 1 hour ago
The Secretary of State said that she—not the White House—takes responsibility for the security situation in Benghazi ahead of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack there that claimed the lives of four America...
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Secretary of State said she takes full responsibility for what happened in Libya.

That's where the blame belongs; they're responsible for all the embassies.

it might also belong with the CIA...we dont know if they understood the deteriorating situation and then also alerted State.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 09:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's enough that the Secretary of State said she takes responsibility for what happened in Libya. For those folks who continue to blame the president are desperate. They'll latch onto anything they can to belittle the president, but informed people will know what their game is all about.

If Romney was the CEO of any company, he should understand the concept "to delegate."

Pretty sad, really.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 10:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Not really. A widely accepted principle of leadership and management is that you can delegate authority, but you can't deligate responsibility.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 10:36 pm
@georgeob1,
Authority and responsibility goes together.

If you're a micro-manager of a huge company, you're probably not a very good CEO. All good managers know how to delegate responsibility - especially in special skill areas. No CEO of a conglomerate can micro-manage every aspect of the operations. It's called "impossible." It's the same with the president of the USA.

Here's another thought; if the CEO is responsible, why did Romney claim he was out of the loop at Bains for how long? Can't have it both ways.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 11:08 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Rather than focusing on who to blame for the attacks, the State Department stayed "focused not on why something happened that was for the intelligence community to determine, but what was happening and could happen,” Clinton said. “We did everything we could to keep our people safe, which is my primary responsibility.”

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/15/14463534-clinton-we-did-everything-we-could-to-keep-our-people-safe?lite

translation: "I take full responsibility for the failure of the mission, but I did everything right, even though I failed".
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 11:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, You are a dummy! Even when almost everything can be done right in any situation, it's never 100% guaranteed that it will work.

You're so smart, how would you protect all the embassies around the world that'll ensure 100% protection for all staff?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2012 11:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
hawk, You are a dummy! Even when almost everything can be done right in any situation, it's never 100% guaranteed that it will work.

Clinton does not know that the state department did everything right, because we dont know what happened yet. however, it takes big ones to have the first ambassador killed in decades killed on your watch but you did "everything you could".

American can no longer protect our ambassadors abroad??!! we are that impotent now?

no, somebody screwed up..... somebody did not match the protection with the risk.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 12:17 am
@hawkeye10,
I asked you; if you are so smart, how would you protect all the staff working in all our embassies around the world?

Answer the ******* question.

0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 08:26 am
@georgeob1,
Who said anyone was delegating responsibility? Biden said he was not aware of any new request for more security. Perfectly plausible because request are handled in the state department by security personnel. In this case the requests were handled by the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Moreover, the request was for Libya nationally not specifically Benghazi and even if the request was met, it would not have went to Libya but Tripoli.

Focus Was on Tripoli in Requests for Security in Libya





0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2012 09:16 am
Mitt Romney’s ‘new math’ for jobs plan doesn’t add up

Quote:
"Let me tell you how I will create 12 million jobs when President Obama couldn't. First, my energy independence policy means more than 3 million new jobs, many of them in manufacturing. My tax reform plan to lower rates for the middle class and for small business creates 7 million more. And expanding trade, cracking down on China and improving job training takes us to over 12 million new jobs.”

— Mitt Romney, “in his own words,” in a campaign television ad


Romney’s 12-million-jobs promise has garnered a lot of attention. We became interested in this ad after a reader asked whether the campaign had provided much detail on how he would reach this total. This television ad is also prominently featured on the Romney campaign’s “Jobs Plan” Web page.

The math here appears pretty simple: 7 plus 3 plus 2 equals 12. But this is campaign math, which means it is mostly made of gossamer. Let’s take a look.

As we have noted before, the 12 million figure is not a bad bet by Romney. Moody’s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.

In any case, four of Romney’s top economic advisers — R. Glenn Hubbard (Dean of Columbia Business School), N. Gregory Mankiw (Harvard professor), John B. Taylor (Stanford professor) and Kevin A. Hassett (American Enterprise Institute scholar) — co-wrote a white paper that lays out the case that Romney’s spending, tax and regulatory policies would yield a more robust recovery — adding 250,000 jobs a month — that would result in 12 million jobs over four years. The analysis, which is prominently posted on the Romney campaign Web site, concludes:

“If we had a recovery that was just the average of past recoveries from deep recessions, like those of 1974-1975 or 1981-1982, the economy would be creating about 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month. By changing course away from the policies of the current administration and ending economic uncertainty, as proposed by the Romney plan, we expect that the current recovery will align with the average gains of similar past recoveries. History shows that a recovery rooted in policies contained in the Romney plan will create about 12 million jobs in the first term of a Romney presidency.”

But the specifics — 7 million plus 3 million plus 2 million — mentioned by Romney in the ad are not in the white paper. So where did that come from?

We asked the Romney campaign, and the answer turns out to be: totally different studies … with completely different timelines.

For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney’s tax plan is a 10-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.

This study at least assesses the claimed effect of specific Romney policies. The rest of the numbers are even more squishy.

For instance, the 3-million-jobs claim for Romney’s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney’s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted — including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.

The 2-million-jobs claim from cracking down on China is also very suspicious.

This figure comes from a 2011 International Trade Commission report, which estimated that there could be a gain of 2.1 million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. intellectual property rights. The estimate is
highly conditional and pegged to the job market in 2011, when there was high unemployment. “It is unclear when China might implement the improvement in IPR protection envisioned in the analysis, and equally unclear whether the United States will face as much excess labor supply then as it does today,” the report says.

The Romney campaign has already used this study, in a misleading way, to claim that Obama’s China “policies cost us 2 million jobs.” Now the campaign has just taken the same figure and credited the claimed job gain to itself, even though the report does not examine any of Romney’s proposed policies.

“The big point is the 3+7+2 does not make up the 12 million jobs in the first four years (different source of growth and different time period),” Hubbard acknowledged in an e-mail.

The Pinocchio Test


This is a case of bait-and-switch. Romney, in his convention speech, spoke of his plan to create “12 million new jobs,” which the campaign’s white paper describes as a four-year goal.

But the candidate’s personal accounting for this figure in this campaign ad is based on different figures and long-range timelines stretching as long as a decade — which in two cases are based on studies that did not even evaluate Romney’s economic plan. The numbers may still add up to 12 million, but they aren’t the same thing — not by a long shot.

In many ways, this episode offers readers a peek behind a campaign wizard’s curtain — and a warning that job-creation claims by any campaign should not be accepted at face value. The white paper at least has the credibility of four well-known economists behind it, but the “new math” of this campaign ad does not add up.

As readers know, we tend to judge more harshly claims in prepared speeches or ads that were the result of considered discussion by political aides.

Clearly, some clever campaign staffer thought it would be nice to match up poll-tested themes such as “energy independence,” “tax reform” and “cracking down on China” with actual job numbers. We just find it puzzling that Romney agreed to personally utter these words without asking more questions about the math behind them.
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 117
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.56 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 04:49:52