Promise Broken
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=180753
Printed Date: 07 June 2026 at 2:15am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Promise Broken
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: Promise Broken
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 11:36am
|
Obama is signing the Omnibus bill with the @8000 earmarks, so much for another campaign promise. 51 day to break a major promise, and not even doing a "public" signing, real class act we got at the wheel.
Obama Lied, our wallets cried................... ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 12:02pm
|
It is pretty ridiculous, they claim that they will be cracking down on ear marks in the coming months. let's hope it's true.
Also, earmarks aren't always a bad thing. They get a bad rap. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 12:02pm
| I have to agree with you on this one. I think this is BS. Change, only if it suits him is what it looks like sometimes. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 12:05pm
|
I think the proper term for it is the OmniPork Spendulous Turducken Bill. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 12:18pm
|
Man, I love these threads.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 12:22pm
|
I realize I am probably a bit slow to pick this up, but anyone else find the humorous irony of one of the 'pork" projects is a provision for hundreds of thousands of dollars for a study on how to contain pig flatulance? Guess that really is a "pork project". A real stinker of one too. |
Posted By: panhead4411
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 5:48pm
| And its just great how He was sayin the other day that the best way for us to get out of this financial mess is to be watchful and responsible spenders.....but only after we wrecklessly spend $800 BILLION......really....? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 6:38pm
| He's 17 and 2 for kept vs broken. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 7:19pm
Truth. If I were one of those intent on badmouthing Obama, I wouldn't be flashing that 'promise-o-meter' web site around so much. ------------- ? |
choopie911 wrote:Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 7:24pm
Too bad the promises aren't weighted. 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 7:25pm
Well, I wouldn't actually go that far. They called this one a "compromise" but let's face it, there are something like 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus package. I call that a failure right there. to quote the obamater:
Now, PolitiFact says they're going to re-visit this one due to the deep contrast between the 9k+ earmarks in the omnibus and the relatively earmark free economic stimulus package, but passing this bill just to "move on." isn't a compromise, it's a failure plain and simple. That "2" in the broken column should be a "3" any way you look at it. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 7:27pm
|
To add to tallen, the compromise for the "no lobbyists in office" thing, is a load of crap. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 9:03pm
|
To be honest, I've never seen a president in my time keep even remote amount of every campaign promise they make. I don't think you can judge a president by his promises, but by the outcome at the end of four years. It's just too early to call Obama a success or a failure, and for anyone rooting for him to fail, shame on you.
That being said, I at least commend this administration for admitting that it's failed in some areas, I think Obama is probably one of the few politicians out there who will genuinely listen to the public when he makes a move, even if I disagree with alot of what he does. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 9:08pm
| Stop being so logical strato, it's not welcome here. |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 9:19pm
I think you're certainly right that most presidents don't keep all of their campaign promises, and that regardless of political affiliations, no one should hope Obama fails. That being said, Obama set a very high bar for himself after the election with promises of accountability and change beyond what your average politician would promise. Consequentially, we have a right to hold him to these promises. Personally, I think its silly to keep a scorecard, but you can't say "Obama is fantastic and a great president" and "don't judge him yet!" in the same sentence. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 9:28pm
|
I think it's legitimate to press politicians to keep their campaign promises, but I think it's utterly retarded that it's done only to bash them. People wonder why politics don't work, but it's that exact mentality of "You're wrong, I'm right, and I'm not going to be constructive AT ALL" that makes it as bad as it seems.
------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 9:57pm
I don't think Obama is fantastic or great in the least, I just feel that if you hold any politician to the standards he sets for himself, you'll find all but a select few fall woefully short.
Being a pro life conservative, it's difficult to find alot to agree on with Obama, but I can also look through the eyes of those who disagree with me politically and feel the frustration that Bush probably left them with. I disagreed with the nitpicking that occured during Bush's terms, and I just as vehemently disagree with it when it comes to Obama.
Cut throat politics is not only in bad taste, it's bad for the country. It's unfortunate that the political parties of this nation choose play politics like a game of football, instead of working together for the common good.
-------------
|
Posted By: Ozwarg
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 11:35pm
|
Were like what.... 7 out of 44 presidents that so far kept all there promises? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 4:11am
I actually agree with everything you said there. My point with calling Obama great was aimed less at you and more at the notion I've seen lately that you can't be critical of Obama yet because of <reason> and explaining how great he is in the same breath. I don't like it at all when political mudslinging starts and I absolutely hate it when political attacks turn personal. Obama set himself a very high bar which everyone should hope and want him to reach, and as citizens and voters we have a duty to be critical of our elected officals whose job, as you pointed out, is to serve us. That doesn't mean we should whine about everything or hold unreasonable expectations, but holding an elected offical to his campaign promises where its reasonable is perfectly fine.
Bingo. The last 8 years have provided us with countless perfect examples of how NOT to express discontent with the sitting administration (mind you, there were many good criticisms offered as well). The chief problem with party politics is it tends to galvanize the nation, making the liberals more liberal and the conservatives more conservative. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 8:44am
|
I think what angers so much of the country, is the way obama made himself out to be centrist...
and the media, who didn't do their jobs in asking tough questions, let him... And said "yes, Obama is a centrist, almost reagan like..."
and now he it is obvious how leftist he truly is.
Lets look at some facts. Next on the horizon is Cap and Trade for energy. This will decimate your income. (not the rich guys, but the average american, the ones obama promised to "lower" taxes) Through higher fuel and home energy prices, as well as anything produced, and purchased...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html
Now Obama isn't the only one, as under bush (course the liberal majority in congress actually wrote and passed the law..., but I'll blame it on Bush since he signed it).
Now we are going to regulate dust through the EPA... As someone who lives in rural America, and farms, I see the rediculousness of this, but everytime my costs go up, I just increase that cost to you, the consumer...
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/02/25/25greenwire-federal-court-upholds-epas-rural-dust-rule-9867.html - http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/02/25/25greenwire-federal-court-upholds-epas-rural-dust-rule-9867.html
Then you heap on the massive new health care reform... Or the massive spending bills...
Or just look at how much Obama's "new" government has spent since it took over...
$1,000,000,000 per hour. Every hour in the first 50 days.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19884.html - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19884.html
Thats change we can believe in alright.
Or how about limiting the amounts of money you can donate and get tax breaks on... Yeah, thats going to help charities... Gotta close those "loopholes", because we need everyone dependant on government...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRLx2HwnWyWs&refer=us - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRLx2HwnWyWs&refer=us
------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 12:44pm
http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=7244
How many people really give 28% of their income away to charity? I'm willing to take the chance that the big donors stop giving some money, because they can (and probably will) continue giving 28% if they're already giving more than that. Although regulation of dust may seem insignificant, it certainly does have an effect on the environment. I will admit that more research should be done on the amount and effect of dust from farms in particular, but it is clear that mines, for example, release a large amount of harmful particulate matter. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:01pm
yup, just give them more, one piece at a time... Pretty soon you are left with nothing.
I wonder if the EPA will fine God next time there is a windstorm in Arizona? The particulate levels will be extremely high...
Actually, they don't need to research it more... Its already law...
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/02-27-2009/20090227035006_15.html - http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/02-27-2009/20090227035006_15.html
So lets ban farms, and energy plants, and every other business, and live in "liberal" utopia...
Where did common sense go? ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:05pm
|
Who are you referring to when you say "give them more"? Yes, clearly regulation = banning. Your logic reigns supreme FE. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:29pm
Them refers to the government
if you regulate a business that is on the edge of failing due to market conditions (typical small farm in america, look at the stats if you don't believe it...), then yes, in that case the government regulations and fines would cause it to fail.
Most regulations are just power grabs. Taking from one group to give to another. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:35pm
Really?  |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 1:43pm
|
Frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with letting small farms fail. Why? Because they are an economic failure. They can't, and shouldn't, be standing up to large farming cooperatives. I'm not entirely sure I have given up anything to the government in this case. Personally, I like this analogy (not my own, it is, in fact, my mother's): The government is like a big dog, and we have to keep it on a leash. Frankly, GWB was getting pretty close to severing the leash. I'm far less worried about Obama's misuse of power, at least so far in his term, even after the clear abuses the Bush administration made. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 3:45pm
I'd like some proof please. Especially that most regulations are just power grabs. Please and thank you. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 3:53pm
|
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680139,00.html - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680139,00.html ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 5:01pm
|
I would just like to point out that phaseouts of itemized deductions for high earners is the law now and has been for a long time. What Obama is proposing is an adjustment, not a new idea. More specifically, it is a continuation with modification of current law. My recollection is that the current deduction phaseout was set to expire in 2010. This is basically a renewal/extension, although I believe the new proposal also has some tweaks.
The issue of deduction capping has been knocked around for decades. Sometimes it is a political hot potato(e), other times everybody is on board.
------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 5:26pm
I am sure most of my wifes family would be pretty sorry to hear that statement. Most of them in these parts own what would be considered small farms, as are most of the farms here, and doubt they would like to hear that people don't care if they fail. If such regulations were imposed it would truly hurt small and big farms alike. As for hurting, a lot of them have been hit recently by the drop in corn prices due to the drop in demand for ethanol. A lot of small farms signed long term contracts to provide corn to ethanol plants and when the bottom dropped out, so did demand. A lot of farmers have been sitting on corn that they now have to sell at a loss before it is completely worthless. I would hardly call any failure in this sense their fault.
You say you don't care if they fail, but when you are paying $10.00 for a box of Cheerios, I'll bet you'll feel differently about it.
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 6:18pm
How do you feel about big oil? I only ask this because allowing the small farms to fail risks us ending up with "big food" controlling another product we all need. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 6:26pm
|
I also have no problems allowing small farms to fail. Generally speaking, everybody should be allowed to fail. There are some exceptions, but I don't see how family farms fit any of them.
That said, FE raised a good point with one of his links - the farm subsidy program is circumventing market forces to put small farms at a disadvantage. Frankly, I think virtually every farm subsidy we have in this country needs to go. They create perverse incentives that go far beyond their intended purpose. On the other hand, there is something afoot that has greatly aided family farms for years now, and will continue to do so for at least the next eight years: wind energy. The unspoken beneficiary of wind energy is the small midwestern farmer. Wind farms provide significant additional revenue to farms, and family farms are getting their share. So if you want to support small farms, support wind energy. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 6:32pm
I don't know about Pariel, but I am in favor of "big oil." The oil/gas/gasoline business is incredibly capital-intensive, and requires large companies. Artificially forcing smaller oil companies into the mix would only introduce market inefficiencies that would result in higher cost to the consumer. The current oil market is plenty competitive. And the same goes for farming. There are significant economies of scale here. The rustic farmer on his tractor is a festive Rockwell-esque image, but it is also hopelessly outdated. Personally I don't see why farming isn't almost completely automated, at least in this country. Progress has been made, but not very fast. I blame the farm subsidies. Of course, small farms should be allowed to compete, and we should remove the subsidies to allow them to do so. But my prediction is that the family farm is headed the way of the Dodo. I will not mourn its loss. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 7:54pm
I'm not entirely sure I'd phrase it that way, but...
...exactly. There's no way a family sized operation could make money -- or for that matter, afford -- doing commercial drilling. The analogy is just wrong.
Mexicans are cheaper than machines.
That's exactly the point: human labor in this country, if we intend to compete in future and developing markets, cannot be just manual labor. Increased education, technical knowledge and development, and more effective use of human resources are going to be key in the next generation (as they are pretty much all the time). People complain that American manufacturing and such are slipping, yet they're unwilling to fix key ingredients that are holding us back. I will have no problem seeing small farms disappearing, because they offer nothing to us in this day and age. Now, this isn't to say that I wouldn't mind seeing better food; I support buying local, and my family buys extensively from the farm near my home from early spring through late fall, and I think that's something it's hard to find at many grocery stores. But at places like Wegman's and Whole Foods (note: my sister's friends call this place Whole Paycheck), you can get very high quality food. So, in essence, I am not worried about "Big Food", and I am not worried about Big Oil either, mainly because I expect them to be gone in 20 years, if any sort of intelligent alternative fuels are actually put into use, as they should be. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 8:19pm
I believe the argument was based on causing small farms to fail due to ridiculous dust regulations. Are you freaking serious? DUST? I guess the EPA needs to come out and fine my wife, because apparently, she is putting my family and I at risk. I obviously disagree with you on some issues, but if you are sincerely arguing the case for such regulations, I think are off your rocker.
I agree that farms failing to make ends meet is one thing, but forcing them to fail by burdening them with assinine regulations about kicking up some dust is going a bit far.
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 8:41pm
|
I took Peter to mean that he was in favor of a fair playing field without undue regulation that unfairly affected any participant. (But I could be wrong.)
-------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 8:58pm
I think that's a pretty good way to phase it. My personal take on subsidies is that we need to find a politician to shoot for that hairbrained idea. But that doesn't mean that small farmers are any more effective as an economic option. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 9:08pm
| Never mind. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 9:09pm
|
That Rush quote doesn't even make any sense. I just read it like 4 times trying to make sense out of it, but couldn't ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 9:10pm
| it was funnier when he said it.... :P I don't really remember the exact words... |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:20am
I don't know how you can say that Obama has been anything other than centrist so far. I would very much enjoy hearing details. If you are basing that claim in part on the rest of your post, then perhaps you misunderstand "centrist".
I would think you would favor cap and trade. It is a market-based approach. The only two other realistic options are a straight carbon tax, or direct emission limits, neither of which allow the costs to be priced and allocated by the market. (actually a carbon tax could if done properly, which is why it is favored by many economists, but that is perhaps a different discussion) So, Obama is faced with an environmental issue, and favors the most market-based solution, and you interpret this to mean that he is a leftist? You may or may not agree with the environmental issue in question (I can take a guess at your position there), but the need to control carbon emissions is no longer a left/right issue anywhere except on Fox News. Conservative leaders around the world agree with the need to control carbon emissions, including many or most of the Republicans in Congress. More relevantly, my point here is that regardless of what you think of the problem, it is quite clear that Obama strongly favors a market solution. I don't see how that is "leftist". (On a side note - linking to opinion pages is not particularly persuasive. Particularly when these opinion pieces are not credited with an author. I have no idea if this is basically a letter to the editor, or Michael Bloomberg writing. Some of the statements in the piece are credible and verifiable, others are conveniently selective. Further research on the subject would benefit you.)
Your next "evidence" for Obama's leftiness is a rule that, by your own admission, originated under Bush. Excuse me if I do not find that persuasive evidence of Obama's leftist politics. (Not a statute passed by Congress, by the way, but an EPA-originated rule. 100% executive branch.) I also enjoy how easily you declare this matter "rediculous." I'm sorry, but looking out the kitchen window and declaring "nah - not too dusty" does not make dust control ridiculous. There is a long history of dust control in this country, for a variety of reasons. Many regions and industries have been subject to dust control rules for decades - this is not a new concept, but an extension of old (bipartisan) policies into new regions and industries. There does appear to be some room for debate about the necessity of rural Midwest dust control, but I suspect neither you or I are qualified to participate in that debate.
Now you are getting somewhere. I think you are being a little premature, since Obama has been relatively vague about the details of his health care reform, but it is quite possible that the result could be true socialized medicine, which would certainly qualify as "leftist" - at least in this country.
Here you are pushing a bit. The recent Omnibus Spending Bill preceded Obama. It was only finished recently, but was underway well before. It is also not particularly different from similar spending bills under previous administrations - right down to the party split of earmarks. Similarly, ARRA (the stimulus bill) has the support of many conservative leaders and economists. It generally favors market-based spending, by competitively bidding out projects to the private sector. ARRA does not put just the people in the public employ, but will motivate the private sector. Again, Obama chooses the market-based approach. A true "socialist" would have simply hired everybody to work for the government. And TARP II, of course, is more or less the same as TARP I (hopefully with some lessons learned implemented). Again, financial industry support has widespread support among economists and conservative leaders. The more leftist approach would have been outright nationalization (although this also has some support from the right, and the Republicans certainly have not been afraid of nationalization in the past). Aggressive government action, including large expenditures, to spur economic growth is not a leftist idea.
Mitch McConnell thinks he is Ross Perot, but he is not. Frankly, he is a bit of an embarassment. He has a wonderful ability to present ridiculous "illustrations" with a straight face. Like this one. Of course, when people like you manage to misinterpret even his silly statements, then I guess he is effective enough. The Obama administration has not "spent" a billion every hour. What has happened is that Congress/Obama has APPROVED expenditures in a total amount equal to a billion per hour, IF you arbitrarily divide that amount into 50 days. Which is kind of silly, since the money in question is to be spent over the course of several years, not 50 days. He might as well have declared, ten seconds after ARRA was signed, that Congress was "spending" a trillion dollars a minute. It would make just as much sense. Is Obama spending money at a furious rate? Absolutely. Does that make the illustration any less goofy? Nope. Back on point - simply spending lots of money is not a left/right issue. Lots of "rightists" like to spend lots of Federal money. The fighting is mostly about how to spend it, and on what. As discussed above, there is plenty of conservative support for aggressive stimulus action, both now and historically. ARRA itself is not automatically "leftist", and the Omnibus Bill certainly is not. McConnell's "argument" (and yours) is basically "ZOMG big numbers!" This is not persuasive.
Next up is Obama's supposed plan to injure the poor charities. As pointed out in an earlier post, this is a gross mischaracterization of what is actually happening. What is proposed is a lowering of the already existing limit on total itemized deductions for high earners. So first problem is that this is not a new thing, but a modification of an old thing. Second problem is that this is not specific to charitable donations. This deduction phaseout applies to the combined total of most itemized deductions, not just charitable donations. Other itemized deductions that might be covered by this phaseout include deductions for live-in nannies, deductions for yachts or Aspen condos, deductions for a home office in a giant mansion, deductions for unreimbursed business expenses (like first-class airline tickets to Rome every few weeks), and so forth. The list of itemized deductions subject to the phaseout is long, and charitable donations is only one entry. The third problem, of course, is what the article you link describes: past history shows that the phaseout does not particularly affect charitable donations. Despite what the proletariat thinks, most people are not motivated in their giving by taxes. When Ted Turner wrote a check for $1 Billion, he blew right through every cap there is, and certainly did not get a deduction for most of that. Bill Gates exceeds the cap many times over every year. At a lower level, millions of Americans drop dollars in the collection plate every Sunday, none of which is tax deductible at all. And, of course, the charitable donation deduction is only available to itemizers, which cuts out millions of Americans who still find a way to give. Americans are a charitable people, and tax deductions have never been a driving force for that tradition. You really should read the articles before linking them. Which brings me to the last problem here: Is it your claim that hating on charities is somehow a "leftist" position? Because that, frankly, is a bit silly. tl;dr: FE claims Obama is leftist, and backs it up with descriptions of things that either Obama didn't to or aren't leftist. I remain unconvinced. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:58am
As Mack interpreted, I am not out to get family farms, but nor do I favor giving them special treatment. That applies to dust regulation as well. If farm dust is a health hazard, as both the EPA and a Federal court appear to think, then regulation may be appropriate. And if there is to be public health-motivated regulation, then that regulation should apply to family farms just the same as to Simplot. If that drives some small farms under, then so be it. Dust regulation should apply to all or none. BTW, both you and FE seem very quick to dismiss dust regulation as silly, based on nothing but your gut reaction. I prefer to base my policy opinions on scientific studies. At this point the state of the science is apparently that it is more likely than not that farm dust is a public health hazard. One might question whether "more likely than not" is the correct standard to apply (it certainly seems a low standard to me), but it is clear that the EPA is not basing their rule on a hunch or gut instinct. And to FE - no, we cannot stop God from causing sandstorms in Arizona. But if you want to do any kind of construction in the AZ desert, you will need to comply with a variety of environmental regulations, including desert tortoise habitat protection, Native American archaelogical site protection, and ... dust control. Dust control has been reality in much of the country for a long time, and somehow those economies have not all collapsed. I agree that we should generally avoid unnecessary regulation - absolutely. But I view the public health as something very much worth protecting. Many of the folk now objecting to this dust control regulation are the current equivalents of the folks who previously objected to particulate emission control for powerplants and factories, objected to mandatory seatbelt installation, objected to OSHA air quality rules, and objected to every other industry regulation motivated by the public health. Yes, every public health concern should be scrutinized before being regulated, and yes, regulation does impose a cost on the economy. But some things are worth the cost. If, for instance, it could be convincingly shown that this dust regulation would save the lives of ten Midwestern babies every year, would that be sufficient cause for regulation? Everything we do is a balancing act. We try to protect each other, but without injuring the economy. It is never easy, and we should certainly challenge regulations to make sure they are truly needed, but it is disingenuous and frankly a bit offensive to dismiss efforts to protect the public health as "asinine." ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 7:35am
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 9:50am
|
Yes collective farms are the answer, that along with 5 year plans to increase crop production, along with a central collection facility, and then a equal ration distribution to food production. Worked so well in the Soviet Union. Eliminate the small personally owned farms and form large collective farms. The pattern has already been tried, only now Obamacrats will perfect the system. I have faith that this will work as well as it did before. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 11:56am
What are you talking about? You people just make things up...entirely. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 11:57am
|
He's talking about collective farms.
-------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 11:59am
|
Yeah and? Doesn't mean he doesn't just make things up.(rationing food wut?) ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:10pm
Comparing collective farming progression towards a communistic system. Not really that hard to follow.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:13pm
I followed it. Doesn't mean it isn't made up and wrong. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:17pm
Like he listened to the plumber guy and told him in front of cameras how he wants to spread the wealth around. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:21pm
Oh good lord, OS. I think J.R. Simplot would object to being called a "collective farmer." We are talking about unrestrained capitalism here, not communism. Your description is off by exactly 180 degrees. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:44pm
|
Peter, you and I know what is going on, people like Jmac3 have a problem with the concept. And if Simplot became the sole distributor of grain and corn in the US, the end result would be? The purpose of the small farmer is to balance and prevent monopolies. And having picked up a bagged grain load at Simplot, you would think you were at a collective farm, no one spoke english, and loaded the truck bag by bag in total silence, a Simplot Gulag. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 1:29pm
Check the blue highlighting. Claims made by opposition is different from fact. Moreover, we have to remember that the NPPC and the AFBF are trade association - aka special interest lobby groups. It is their very raison d'etre to oppose every single rule and restriction applicable to farming. That is what they do. Groups like these objected to pesticide rules and herbicide rules. They lobby hugely in favor of the farm subsidies we all hate. They support protectionist policies. They are not impartial; they are the opposite of impartial. A quick look through history will show each of these groups opposing a variety of EPA rules and other state and federal laws/regulations. This certainly does not mean that we should ignore their arguments, but it does mean that we should apply scrutiny and skepticism. Also check some other sources, FE's article:
Better yet, of course, let's not filter our information through journalists who are limited to 250 words, or through press releases by trade associations. Let's go straight to the actual opinion of the court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/061410p.pdf - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/061410p.pdf (if that link requires a login, I can probably find a different one) Reading the opinion, we discover all kinds of interesting things that didn't make it into the little article summaries. For instance: - This rulemaking process started in 1997. It has been through research periods, public comment periods, and at least one prior lawsuit. This is not some new thing that the EPA suddenly came up with. - The NPPC and the AFBF are not the only groups involved here. A wide variety of interested groups from different backgrounds offered comments to the EPA and/or amicus briefs to the court. Environmental groups, obviously, and medical/public health groups, and others. In other words, this is the result of a 10-year public process spanning two administrations, with significant input from a large number of interested parties. Moreover, we learn that these articles are guilty of selective quoting, which is rather ironic given the sections they are selectively quoting. The first line below is frequently quoted by the NPPC; the rest of the paragraph/section not so much: (from p38):
(more discussion of studies follows) Basically - yes, the court acknowledges that the science is not conclusive... BUT the court points out that the EPA has many studies indicating that these particles probably are dangerous, while the opposers can show no science that it is not dangerous. Currently, all the available science points to this being a public health issue. Should we, as a matter of law, require a higher scientific standard before imposing regulations? Maybe - that is a very complicated subject. But this regulation was under the Clean Air Act, which is the same law (and the same scientific standard) used to regulate everything else in the air, like NOx and SO2, and the same law that has made our air, soil, and water much cleaner than it was. If we were really serious, of course, we would not stop with the court's opinion - the real beef is in the EPA proceedings and scientific studies. That's all public as well, and most of it is on the EPA's website. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 1:36pm
Small farmers have no "purpose" beyond trying to make money. Small farms are not necessary to prevent monopolies - and they are actually really bad at preventing monopolies, because they are ... small. To best prevent monopolies you need several large competitors. And your argument is that Simplot is a "gulag" or a collective because Simplot, in pure capitalist fashion, sought out the lowest-cost labor, which happens not to speak English. So basically you are saying that Simplot is so uber-capitalistic that they are actually communist. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 2:18pm
|
Interesting. I always thought we were a country based on guilty until proved innocent. Wasn't aware that we could ban things because they are THOUGHT to case health hazards. Personally whiny city boys complaining about the smell of pig crap gives me migraines. Perhaps we should ban them.
I don't contest that damage is caused by certain pesticides and am all for cleaning things up. But some regulations are simply ridiculous. How are you supposed to drive down a gravel road on a windy day without kicking up dust? Should that really be regulated? Cmon.
Unfortunately, I am sure that this is what they are trying to control:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei14/session7/reid.pdf - http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei14/session7/reid.pdf
Which I don't necessarily disagree with. However, a large net is being thrown on the side of caution rather than directly aimed at the offensive issues.
Another link I found was:
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=293699 - http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=293699
Yes, it is obviously published by an interested party, but statements regarding ongoing studies with no conclusions yet, points to putting the cart before the horse. It again also states that the burden of proof is being put on the agriculture industry to prove something doesn't exist. Basically, prove that dust in the air by cattle movement or driving down a dirt road doesn't cause harm. Mmkay.
Honestly, it isn't my battle. It actually is one of the first times I have heard about it as I am not directly involved in the farming business. However, I am not in favor of over regulation in already hard hit industries.
As for giving small farms a break, again, I will mention that a lot of farmers are being hurt due to the drop in corn prices. They were roped into planting corn with the promises of riches and than when the Ethanol plants crapped out, so did the contracts. I find it interesting that we are willing to bail out banks and individuals that made poor decisions, but God forbid, we give an honest farmer a break who was pushed to support alternative fuel. Bad farmer, Bad!
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 2:57pm
That makes no sense. "Guilty until proven innocent" is a criminal concept. Nobody is going to prison here. In civil courts, on the other hand, the standard always has been "the preponderance of the evidence" - i.e., 51%. And you are vastly understanding the science by dismissing the health risks as imaginary. And nobody is talking about "banning" anything. This paragraph is a complete and utter strawman that bears no relationship to the actual issue.
And "cmon" and "ridiculous" were arguments raised against pesticide control as well. Those arguments were not persuasive then, and they are not persuasive now. And if it turns out that rural gravel roads are killing babies, then yes we should do something about that. I don't know what the solution is, but it is a problem to be solved. That is what we humans do - we solve problems. We don't ignore them because they are inconvenient.
To some extent that is probably true, but I suspect not as much as you think. The EPA has been researching and regulating particulate emissions for decades. They did not come out immediately and jump all over all particulates. Instead, they have slowly looked at different PM sources one by one, and addressed them separately. These regulations are carefully drafted and reviewed. It is NOT just a general prohibition thrown out there. Such a characterization is simply false.
And this article illustrates the dangers of getting information from lobbyists. This article directly misstates the process. The DC Court is an appeals court. The court is not evaluating the merits of the science on a blank slate. The court's mandate here is to make sure that the EPA did not abuse its power. Period. That's it. There are many ways abuse of discretion can occur, mostly relating to process, but also relating to overstating the underlying research. Opponents attacked on all fronts. The EPA followed proper procedure here, which includes plenty of opportunity for public comment. All interested parties had a full decade to present research and comment on research presented by others. The farm lobby did not have to prove a negative. If they could simply show that the pro-regulation science was flawed they would have prevailed. What happened here was that the EPA spent a decade looking at research, listening to comments from everybody, and evaluating all facts, and then concluded that there was sufficient risk of a public health hazard to merit regulation. This is THE EXACT SAME PROCESS that was followed for pesticide regulation and powerplant emission regulation. The exact same. This court case was just to make sure that the EPA did it properly. Apparently the court thinks the EPA did it properly.
Same for me.
I also don't favor overregulation, but nor do I favor skipping important regulation just because some businesses will suffer. If we applied that standard, no regulation would ever happen.
I find it equally interesting that you are willing to throw home owners under the bus, but want to help businesses that made poor decisions... But as I have said many times already, my support for the various bailout packages has nothing to do with helping people that made bad decisions, and everything to do with saving ourselves from getting dragged down with them. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:03pm
Since when does not speaking english have anything to do with collective farms? Further, if they were totally silent, how do you know none of them spoke english? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:04pm
| Googlefu me any direct link to a study that shows direct evidence of dangerous dust originating from farming activity. Specifically farming activity. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:15pm
I dont need to googlefu anything. every year i am damn near completely useless for a couple weeks during harvest because my eyes are itchy and watery, some days i can barely open them. My sinuses go on a rampage making it difficult to breathe. i wake up most mornings in a pool of snot. I am forced to stay inside, mostly in my own room with my HEPA fan blowing in my face to try to get a little bit of a break. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:32pm
I have the same thing in Spring as well. It's called allergies. Even when I lived in Florida, with no farms anywhere around me, I had the same problem.
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:33pm
but, since you asked so nicely:
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:33pm
|
Dust Bowl wut?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:35pm
omg thats what its called? i had no idea! funny thing, i dont get them in the spring nearly as severely as i do in the fall when the combines start rolling. and shortly after they stop, so do my alergies. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 4:00pm
All of these are directly pertaining to persons in direct contact with farms, I.e. farmers. Some aren't even relevant.
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 4:04pm
Equivalent to comparing the wave created in the tub when you fart to a 100foot tall tidal wave. The dust storms during that time would go on for days at a time. It wasn't some cloud that you drove through on the way to the grocery store. It was unrelenting 40mph+ windstorms pounding on people living in little more than shacks with no central air systems filtering out the particulates.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 4:10pm
|
Another great example of our public education system, people who do not even know what the "dust bowl" was or when. American History Class? Maybe........ -------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 4:17pm
| you asked for dangerous dust from farming. you got dangerous dust from farming. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 4:26pm
|
Maybe you need to keep going to school OS. Technically I delivered rather dangerous dust from farming.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 4:36pm
No matter how irrelevant it is.
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 4:37pm
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 4:57pm
how can you say it is irrelevant when one of them specifically says
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 5:36pm
|
What is the comparison of occurence in children that are not exposed to any of these factors? As asthma can run in families, how many of these children came from families where it was prevelant? Asthma can further be triggered by allergies to pet dander. Where is the comparison to kids that have dogs/cats? How many of these kids parents smoked? Lots of variables not accounted for. Irrelevant.
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 6:36pm
------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 6:45pm
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 6:48pm
Ooh! Ooh! I can play too.
-------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 6:49pm
Who the heck is Pariell?  I'd like to point out that I wrote that, note some admin. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 6:57pm
Actually, I wrote that as well and one of the mods put it in.
And Mack, you were doing so well with the impulse control...
 |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 6:59pm
|
What can I say? The title is true. Some mod (I forget which one) tagged me accurately with that one.
-------------
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 8:13pm
If rural gravel roads are prevented from killing babies, so should liberals. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 8:55pm
/thread Stormy wins. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 9:03pm
2nd.
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 3:52pm
And you determined all that from a single paragraph quote? I can promise - PROMISE - you that each of the studies quoted by Eville contained a discussion of as many confounding variables as the researchers could think of. The study design would then use basic statistical tools to isolate those confouning variables. Similarly, the full description of the study results would make clear that the results are or are not subject to any given confound. How do I know that? Because that is what scientists do. There is exactly zero percent chance that those journals would publish a study that did not make a professional effort at isolating the confounds. Scientists do this for a living. They spend all day trying to think of other causes for their results, and then trying to isolate out those other causes. That is how the scientific method works. You cannot simply dismiss scientific results you do not like by declaring "nah - I bet it was caused by something else." Of course, no one study is conclusive, and further study on all confounds is always warranted, and indeed studies will admit that they were unable to isolate some confounds. And, of course, no researcher can think of every possible confound. That is why we keep doing studies. But to simply dismiss the studies like you just did is insulting to scientists everywhere, and illustrative of your lack of familiarity with the scientific process. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 3:54pm
Ah, yes - the old "I cannot contribute intelligently to this conversation, therefore I shall change the subject instead" argument. Sorry. Irrelevant. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 3:57pm
| i think, hope, that he was making a funny. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 3:58pm
With Stormy, I can never tell. But my funny bone is burnt out at the moment. I will check back when it regenerates. :) ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 4:43pm
So you are allowed without the full info you mentioned to confirm the data is relevant, but I am not allowed to state that I feel that it isn't? Interesting.
It's been a few years since I cracked a textbook, so my scientific methodology may be a little rusty, but I do comprehend the basics still.
Simply because I disagree with you, doesn't make me wrong.
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 4:50pm
|
Except when multiple scientific studies prove otherwise.
-------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 4:52pm
| within the next day or two ill see if i can get the full text. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 5:18pm
|
after looking through the full text, I can tell you that everything you mentioned, and more was controlled for in that study. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 5:40pm
3rd...
Seriously, how can you care if it saves a few babies... when you want abortion legal...
very two faced...
Well, THIS baby is important, but, go ahead and kill THAT one... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 5:44pm
Well the baby in the dust topic has been born, giving him rights under the constitution. The unborn one does not.
But another good attempt to change the argument when you have nothing else to say. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 6:25pm
For people so consumed with free thought, a lot of you seem very convinced of what my thoughts should be.
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 6:32pm
Now that I agree with all of you, when do I get my barcode? What are my thoughts on same sex marriage and welfare? I have a party coming up and need to make sure I am on the same page.
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 6:44pm
|
Science is scary -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:08pm
Apparently oldpbnoob thinks so. I, for one, hope that Stormy was being serious, although I don't know if he was. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:47pm
I fear complacency and the blind acceptance of everything presented by scientists as absolute fact. They are not always right and they don't always have your best interests in mind. Regardless of what you think, science is a business in the sense that it has to generate income in the form of grants, studies, etc. If there were no problems to solve, a lot of scientist would be out of a job. If you think all scientists are pure in their motives. Think again.
Blindly follow sheep.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:53pm
|
Abortion doesn't kill babies. Whatever the hell you fools are talking seems to be casuing harm to grown, already born children. If Stormy was serious, I don't even know what to say. If FE was serious trying to continue that nonsensical argument...never you're always trolling. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:54pm
I completely agree with you. One of the nice things about science is that scientific fact doesn't represent the views of it's discoverer. They could be outright lying to me, yes. But I doubt it. There will always be problems to solve -- in case you hadn't noticed, historical precedent says we'll be needing more of them, not less, in the coming years. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 9:34pm
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 10:26pm
|
What no one has mentioned yet is that life is full of trade-offs. Could we make everything (and its production) 100% safe? Probably. But then it would all be too expensive and we'd only be able to live in caves and eat questionable stuff off of naturally growing plants. The simple fact is there will always be risk in life. When you compare feeding millions in an affordable manner to the problems caused by farm dust it just makes more sense to put up with the dust. Oh, and I agree that Stormy won with his gravel dust/abortion comment. -------------
|