Obama '08?

@MontereyJack,

Monterey, I obviously did not research every detail of why they hauled their garbage to Oklahoma, but as I said, I have a close relative that drove a truck daily, most of the time he did two trips per day with a semi-truck to and from Wichita to haul dozens of tons daily, his truck alone, and I forget now how many were in the fleet that did this every day. Not only was it a ridiculous waste of resources and energy, it was a significant impact upon the highways traveled every day for years and the cost and energy to repair them. At least one driver died in an accident while doing it. I am not familiar with the cost of doing it either, but I believe the trucking was done by contract and I can tell you this, it was not cheap, and common sense would tell us that it probably cost far more than if it was taken to a local landfill around Wichita. The trucks, the fuel, the wages and benefits for drivers, insurance, and then the contracting company needed to make a profit, it would be silly to assume that was the most efficient way of doing things.

I recall my close relative talking about why the company was doing it, and it was because they could not install a landfill there around Wichita in a timely manner due to much opposition and regulatory hurdles. I am not familiar with the details, but it is simple common sense to assume that regulatory hurdles were probably a factor. Where I have lived in another location, the very same thing happened with a landfill, and it took years for a company to jump through all the hoops, the NIMBY people and their lawyers, plus the local zoning and regulatory stuff. Look, I am not saying some regulations are not appropriate as well as zoning issues for a landfill, but I fail to see why this has to go on for literally years and years, thus costing the taxpayer great sums of money and consuming much more energy to haul trash about 200 miles round trip for example. Maybe you think it is common sense, but I do not, and that is why you are liberal and I am defined as conservative. I think this example is a really good example of probably over-regulation, because what it amounted to was "cutting off their nose to spite their face."

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, you blame regulations on the fact that a private contractor found a good rate and made a business decision to move the trash elsewhere?

I do not blame the contractor. I blame the monumental waste of energy and money to haul the trash to Oklahoma on the fact that the local authorities were not able to create another landfill in a more logical location to serve the Wichita area, and I think regulations played a big part in that failure to be able to do that in a timely manner.

Quote:

Not every decision is a great decision, and not every regulation is a valid or useful one. We don't live in a black and white world, Okie. But that doesn't mean that regulations are bad, or that we shouldn't have them. Currently, we have a long way to go when it comes to regulating our industry effectively, because there is still a hell of a lot of pollution and dumping going on, harmful to everyone, in the name of saving monies for producers - and to hell with anyone who doesn't like chemicals and toxins in their water and land.

Not an ideal situation.

Cycloptichorn

Whether you realize it or not, you just agreed with me, perhaps inadvertantly I am not sure. You admit not all regulations are valid or useful, and that is precisely my point. If they are not valid or useful, then we are obviously over-regulated or mis-regulated, so that some regulations should be repealed and perhaps others should be frozen before new ones are created, to make sure we are acting wisely. Thanks for the debate, cyclops, in which you clearly admit I won it. That may be a first on this debate forum, wherein a participant actually admits that the debate opponent was correct?

Another clarification, I never have said all regulations were bad, or that we should have none.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

If they are not valid or useful, then we are obviously over-regulated or mis-regulated

Wrong. The fact that SOME regulations aren't correct ones does not mean that we are over-regulated. In fact, there are a wide variety of other regulations that SHOULD exist, but don't - correct ones, that will keep industry from polluting our shared resources.

Quote:

Thanks for the debate, cyclops, in which you clearly admit I won it. That may be a first on this debate forum, wherein a participant actually admits that the debate opponent was correct?

I most certainly did nothing of the sort. You simply have jumped to an incorrect conclusion here. The fact that not every regulation is a good one doesn't mean that there are too many regulations, not in the slightest.

I wish you could elevate from such a black and white, simplistic view of the world, Okie. Look at the bigger picture.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

So okie..

When you said the Obama administration should quit destroying the country were you demagoguing the issue or did you really mean that they are destroying the country?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Stupid post, cyclops. If some regulations are poor and unneeded, then we are over-regulated or mis-regulated, plain and simple. You lost the argument.

1 Reply

@parados,

Provide the quote wherein I supposedly said Obama was destroying the country, and I can then verify if I did say that and in what context it was used.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Stupid post, cyclops. If some regulations are poor and unneeded, then we are over-regulated or mis-regulated, plain and simple. You lost the argument.

This is a false assertion on your part.

Let us say that there are some laws on the books which don't make sense - they are outdated or don't match modern times. Does that mean that we are over-legislated? The assertion you are making doesn't follow logically. It also doesn't address the fact that there are many other environmental issues re: big business that should be regulated, but are not. The assertion that we are 'over-regulated' would seem to imply that we shouldn't have these new regulations, even though they are needed. I can't agree with that position.

I don't think it's very convincing when people declare that they have 'won' without being able to logically show how they did it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not every decision is a great decision, and not every regulation is a valid or useful one. We don't live in a black and white world, Okie. But that doesn't mean that regulations are bad, or that we shouldn't have them. Currently, we have a long way to go when it comes to regulating our industry effectively, because there is still a hell of a lot of pollution and dumping going on, harmful to everyone, in the name of saving monies for producers - and to hell with anyone who doesn't like chemicals and toxins in their water and land.

Not an ideal situation.

Cycloptichorn

I generally agree with this statement. However, most folks are more aware of and more propagandized concerning the evils of unregulated activities than they are of the bad side effects of regulation.

For example, even industries and corporations that pollute the environment, produce things that people want and buy - a benefit that goes in the balance with the harm they may do. When such companies cease to competitively produce things people want, they go out of business and are eliminated, with or without regulation. Regulators and bureaucracies however, have the power of government and are generally self-perpetuating: their harmful side effects will continue even after the benefits they bring may cease.

The Medieval guilds initially benefitted everyone by bringing higher standards of training and quality to skilled trades, but eventually degenerated to trade monopolies that actively limited production and wealth for everyone until their power was broken by rising cities and industries.

The focus, energy, agility and creativeness of people trying to thwart regulations for their own economic benefit generally exceeds that of the bureaucrats trying to limit their behavior. Indeed many people and businesses co-opt the regulators by influencing the details of regulation to get themselves protection from their own competitors.

All of these factors should be considered by those contemplating the "perfection" of human life through more regulation. It remains a dymamic process, requiring both the creation of new regulations and the dismantling of old, ineffective or harmful ones, as well as careful scrutiny and action to limit the power of the regulators themselves. The basic fact remains that, in the long run, markets are better at self-regulation and adaptation to changing circumstances than top-down regulations. Both have harmful side effects, and the optimization of the two is, at best, uncertain and difficult.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I generally agree with what you've written here, but I must say it's hard to keep this in mind when you're faced with the reality of the pollution.

I spent some time this year on the Gulf Coast, and one of the things I got to do was take a boat trip with some friends to see to coast of Louisiana. It was one of the best AND worst experiences of my life; truly a beautiful place and at one point we were catching fish as fast as your unbaited hooks hit the water. It was fabulous.

UNTIL we went a dozen miles up the coast, and saw the pollution streaming out of several chemical plants, right into the ocean. It made me sick to see, I mean, brown, toxic-smelling, oily-sheened water just being dumped right into the gulf. We were at least a half a mile away and the smell was nauseating. My friends told me that the chemical plants basically own the politicians around there and have successfully avoided regulation to the point where residents are warned not to eat the wildlife caught anywhere close to the plant.

It was disgusting, I'll never forget the feeling of being so happy to be around natural beauty and the contrast of the destruction industry does to it when it's unfettered. I believe manufacturers should be held more responsible for the cost of cleaning up the byproducts of their production, and that those costs should be passed on to the users of those products - not to me, or to our shared spaces. It's hardly fair.

This whole conversation got started on the fact that many Republicans call for a 'regulations freeze.' Such an attitude is not a serious one.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The regulation freeze is a ploy by Wall Street to carry on their thieving ways. Wall Street influence runs deep. They talk about the deficit in a financial crisis is like harping on running the battery out of juice to start a car stalled in the mud.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Sounds like you went upriver towards Baton Rouge.

The correlation between things that look and smell bad with long lasting toxic effect is positive, but not all that high. Some of the worst and most long-lasting & mobile pollutants don't look or smell bad. Some (not all) foul smelling stuff breaks down into relatively innocuous components under the action of water, sun & microbes fairly quickly.

You probably use and consume more of the products of our chemical industry than you may casually assume.

Finally, the Federal EPA, not the state, is their primary regulator.

1 Reply

It continues to be true:

Leftist liberals seek to secure their right to steal wealth others earn.

Rightist liberals seek to secure their right to retain wealth they earn.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Sounds like you went upriver towards Baton Rouge.

The correlation between things that look and smell bad with long lasting toxic effect is positive, but not all that high. Some of the worst and most long-lasting & mobile pollutants don't look or smell bad. Some (not all) foul smelling stuff breaks down into relatively innocuous components under the action of water, sun & microbes fairly quickly.

This is true, but I'm relying also on a bunch of scientific studies that show the harm done by the dumping, not just my olfactory opinions. It was absolutely jarring to see, however, really left a mark.

Quote:

You probably use and consume more of the products of our chemical industry than you may casually assume.

I'm willing to pay more for goods if the price includes the fees of producing them sustainably and without pollution, or at least with as little as possible. In fact, I make this a major factor in my buying decisions currently. My initial impulse is to always avoid cheaper items specifically because of this; most of the stuff which seems like a 'good deal' only is so if you ignore the negative externalities.

Quote:

Finally, the Federal EPA, not the state, is their primary regulator.

Yup. But, as the recent BP fiasco shows, they really aren't all that interested in doing their job.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It was disgusting, I'll never forget the feeling of being so happy to be around natural beauty and the contrast of the destruction industry does to it when it's unfettered. I believe manufacturers should be held more responsible for the cost of cleaning up the byproducts of their production, and that those costs should be passed on to the users of those products - not to me, or to our shared spaces. It's hardly fair.

But Cyclo, if you make the manufacturers do that you increase the price of their products and make them uncompetitive with identical products from countries where they stick people in labour camps for making the sort of noises you do. Then you can complain about jobs being exported, massive trade deficits and the country going knackered. You can't lose as long as you don't connect the dots up.

How do you like the shite spill in Hungary?

Where does BP rate in Gulf pollution?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
It was disgusting, I'll never forget the feeling of being so happy to be around natural beauty and the contrast of the destruction industry does to it when it's unfettered. I believe manufacturers should be held more responsible for the cost of cleaning up the byproducts of their production, and that those costs should be passed on to the users of those products - not to me, or to our shared spaces. It's hardly fair.

But Cyclo, if you make the manufacturers do that you increase the price of their products and make them uncompetitive with identical products from countries where they stick people in labour camps for making the sort of noises you do. Then you can complain about jobs being exported, massive trade deficits and the country going knackered. You can't lose as long as you don't connect the dots up.

There are always Tariffs to solve that problem. I don't buy the free-trade bullshit that people throw around, saying that they are bad.

Quote:

How do you like the shite spill in Hungary?

Yeah, that's a ****-fit all right.

Quote:

Where does BP rate in Gulf pollution?

I don't honestly know, though the recent spill can't have but moved them up the list.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

There are always Tariffs to solve that problem.

But the IMF are putting out dire warnings about increasing tariffs from where they are now. Tariffs are the first thing cheap statemen reach for when in a fix.

You need to know that you are actually arguing for a World Government.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
There are always Tariffs to solve that problem.

But the IMF are putting out dire warnings about increasing tariffs from where they are now. Tariffs are the first thing cheap statemen reach for when in a fix.

I don't believe that the IMF is an organization which actually does what it claims to do; instead of existing to raise impoverished countries up, it's more of a scam designed to ensure cheap labor supply for developed countries.

Quote:

You need to know that you are actually arguing for a World Government.

Well, that is the direction that we are heading as a species. You likely won't live long enough to see it, and probably I won't either, but don't think that we won't get there; it's natural.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't believe that the IMF is an organization which actually does what it claims to do; instead of existing to raise impoverished countries up, it's more of a scam designed to ensure cheap labor supply for developed countries.

Cycloptichorn

The IMF was designed to be a lender of last resort to sovereign entities, and not either a sponsor for impoverished countries or a guarantor of cheap labor for rich ones. It does its designed job fairly well.

Over the last few decades the main obstacles to the development and enrichment of poor countries have been kleptocratic authoritarian governments; wasteful socialistic economic policies; and attempts at central government management of economies. Successful escapes from poverty, from China to India, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia and even Morrocco have all resulted from the relaxation of government control and the creation of free market economies.

0 Replies

@okie,

http://able2know.org/topic/47327-353#post-3678239

okie wrote:

I hope they fail, so they will quit destroying the country. I wish the country well instead of them.

You are referring to the Obama administration okie. How can they quit destroying the country unless you are saying they are destroying it.

http://able2know.org/topic/47327-377#post-3708962

okie wrote:

Its worth hoping for and fighting for, after all its the country we fought for, I don't want to see it destroyed and flushed down the drain by the likes of Obama and his followers.

How can you see it destroyed unless Obama is destroying it OK?

Since you used "destroy" on at least 2 occasions okie, it is logical to think when you use the words "ruin" and "wreck" that they mean the same thing as destroy.

Now, let's see how honest and decent you really are okie. Or are you going to parse the meanings of words?

2 Replies

@parados,

Parados, you deserve credit, you did find quotes of mine, wherein I used the term destroy for Obama's actions in those posts. My apologies to you. I probably was particularly irritated on those days I placed those posts. I don't know if I used the the appropriate term, as I think I might downgrade that now a bit to "damage," particularly if the Republicans can win a landslide to gain control of Congress this fall, because that would neuter Obama's ability to continue his really poor policies that I believe would eventually destroy the country as we know it. For example, I do think one of Obama's initiatives, Obamacare, will eventually destroy the health care system as we know it now, that is if he is able to add to Obamacare in the future until he achieves his ultimate aim of single payer government controlled health care. Similar outcomes could happen in other sectors of American commerce and industry as well, if Obama is allowed to get his way on everything he wants to do. I cannot predict how it would all play out, but you are correct, I have no trust in the man at all in terms of what he would do right.

Whether I would use the term, "destroy" again, I doubt it, because that is a very strong term. It does imply the country would be beyond any repair after he is done with it, but given the existing fabric of the country, I do not think he will be able to finish the job of destroying it, because it might take more than 4 years for him to do it, especially if he loses the support of Congress in a few months. I think the people should or might wake up soon enough to vote the Democrats and Obama out.

3 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know