It's Official - Debt Ceiling Deal is Bad

[∞∞∞]

Hey smitty, I'll give you a thoughtful response tomorrow. I made you think a literature of good points to my aryument but some I obviously disagree with. Im kinda hosting a few people right now if you know what I mean so I don't have the time to respond right now.

Have a good night man!

[ODUsmitty]

Smudge, you are my brother from a Lebanese mother. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things without the name-calling that normally ensues. Lool forward to your response!

[ODUsmitty]

Time to pay the bills, Smudge.

[∞∞∞]

Hey smitty, I'll give you a thoughtful response tomorrow. I made you think a literature of good points to my aryument but some I obviously disagree with. Im kinda hosting a few people right now if you know what I mean so I don't have the time to respond right now.

Have a good night man!

WTF?

Time to pay the bills, Smudge.

I guess I just defaulted.

I actually don't remember writing the above , but it does look like I did promise a reply, so here goes:

1. I agree, no one should be able to just get a home regardless of how bad their credit is...it's an entirely stupid concept. That said, from briefly reading about the act you cited, lenders weren't forced by the government to give to higher risk people. However, the banks still did (people buying the homes are to blame here too) and in the end, it backfired.

2. Again, I agree that people who don't contribute to society (other than dependents) shouldn't be getting welfare, medical care, and etc. I like the idea that if you can't find a job and have been legitimately trying, that's when the government steps in and hands you a temporary job, preferrably manual labor in building/repairing our infrastructure or working in the fields, while continuing looking for a job. If someone isn't actually trying to contribute anything, I couldn't care less if they die in the streets bitching about how unfair the world is because they got their chances.

Also, I do agree that jobs are a beneficial side effect. However, I don't think many business leaders actually understand the dynamics between job creation and revenues anymore. Some companies are making record profits, but they aren't creating any more jobs, and in many cases, cutting them.

3. This is where I fundamentally disagree with you. I'm a huge environmentalist (was an Enviro Engn major before ODU dropped it), worked for the EPA, and do believe in government regulations when it comes to this stuff. I want to write like a whole paper response to what you just said as I've got a slew of thoughts running through my head, but I'm actually tired as it's almost 4 AM, so I'm gonna continue this reply tomorrow when I get my thoughts together in a cohesive manner...

4. I kinda agree. Sure some people are saving because they're expecting an economic armageddon, but we wouldn't be expecting an economic armageddon if companies would stop saving all their profits and start reinvesting some of it back in the pockets of their middle-class employees. I don't know how they expect the economy to grow when the money isn't being recirculated back into the hands of the people who spend it.

5. Again, fundamental disagreement that I'll expand on tomorrow. I understand there needs to be a balance between economic and environmental policies, but green energy is no farce (as proven by the long-term savings of many companies who invested in it years ago); I don't have much of a problem with using coal, but you have to understand that there's a reason their lobbyists have been trying to limit green energy for years now, and it's because they know it's far superior to their product. The common argument I hear is that if they think green energy is more profitable, they would be doing it right now. However, one forgotten fact is that coal executives were short-sighted when green energy was in its infancy. Players like GE invested in it, but coal companies just shrugged it off because of their "good-ole boys" culture at the time (that still very much exists). When green energy began growing (specifically in the early 90s) and proving with statistics that it was a better and cleaner source of energy, coal companies began to realize the threat that they had overlooked years ago was now at their doorstep and that they were far behind in the infrastructure needed to catch up with the companies that had invested in it. And since then, their lobbyist have successfully been able to pull off the amazing lie on America that green energy is a farce. Alright, I'll continue tomorrow evening...

6. I don't think it's a coordinated attack on capitalistic society. As I've said before on this website, I think capitalism and socialism work in a cycle. Capitalism naturally turns into socialism and socialism naturally turns into capitalism, and each has its benefits and its flaws. Right now, I think that the US is in a natural transition from capitalism to socialism (and each system works within the Constitution). For you and I, the concept of socialism is very taboo. For our grandchildren, the concept of capitalism might be very taboo. It's all relative to the mindset of the society at the time.

[SDHornet]

2. Again, I agree that people who don't contribute to society (other than dependents) shouldn't be getting welfare, medical care, and etc. I like the idea that if you can't find a job and have been legitimately trying, that's when the government steps in and hands you a temporary job, preferrably manual labor in building/repairing our infrastructure or working in the fields, while continuing looking for a job. If someone isn't actually trying to contribute anything, I couldn't care less if they die in the streets bitching about how unfair the world is because they got their chances.

Construction jobs should be reserved for people who actually have the skills needed to get the work done. Stupid and unskilled people tend to get hurt and even die on a construction site. These injuries and deaths would do nothing but slow down work thereby increasing the costs of said projects. May I suggest using forced labor for agribusiness needs instead? This would put some unskilled unemployed people back to work as well as tackle a good portion of illegal immigration.

[Ivytalk]

In response to point 6 of Trips' post above: remember the old joke about the
Russian who was asked to explain the difference between capitalism and socialism: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around!"

[GannonFan]

To me, the real problem with the debt ceiling deal is that it hasn't decided anything, other than being allowed to spend the money we already committed to spend. But all the same problems are there - we're spending way, way too much money, we'll never be able to raise enough revenue to offset this spending, and we have no idea as to how to even go about starting to raise this revenue which even if we raised it, will still be short of the spending we're heading towards. All of the uncertainties are still out there - we have no clear vision of where the tax code is going (agreeing to set up yet another committee to look at this is pretty much admitting that), we have no answer for the likely spiraling costs of entitlement programs we are committed to going forward (namely health care costs), and we don't seem to have any real stomach or leadership to decide any of these things.

And the economy is never going to recover with any vitality until we begin to answer these questions - Obama's continual flaw is that he continues to be incapable of leading and pushing forward on these answers, and the economy flounders as a result, and a stagnant GDP just exacerbates and prolongs the problems. We're 3 years into the Presidency without an answer to these problems and unfortunately, this debt deal just looks like we've resigned ourselves to not answering them until next year at the earliest, and being an election year, means we won't do it next year either. I was too young to really experience and understand the stagnation and malaise of the mid to late 70's - apparently I'm getting a chance to experience it again now.

[HI54UNI]

2. Again, I agree that people who don't contribute to society (other than dependents) shouldn't be getting welfare, medical care, and etc. I like the idea that if you can't find a job and have been legitimately trying, that's when the government steps in and hands you a temporary job, preferrably manual labor in building/repairing our infrastructure or working in the fields, while continuing looking for a job. If someone isn't actually trying to contribute anything, I couldn't care less if they die in the streets bitching about how unfair the world is because they got their chances.

Also, I do agree that jobs are a beneficial side effect. However, I don't think many business leaders actually understand the dynamics between job creation and revenues anymore. Some companies are making record profits, but they aren't creating any more jobs, and in many cases, cutting them.

The business world is scared shitless right now. They don't know what the government is going to do next. What are energy prices going to do? What is health reform going to cost them? What are taxes going to do? What mandate will be next? Why hire employees and reinvest if you can't guarantee yourself a profit? For example why should a manufacturer expand and hire new employees when tomorrow their utility cost could double or they could be penalized for not providing the right healthcare plan. Might as well wait or just move it to Mexico or China.

3. This is where I fundamentally disagree with you. I'm a huge environmentalist (was an Enviro Engn major before ODU dropped it), worked for the EPA, and do believe in government regulations when it comes to this stuff. I want to write like a whole paper response to what you just said as I've got a slew of thoughts running through my head, but I'm actually tired as it's almost 4 AM, so I'm gonna continue this reply tomorrow when I get my thoughts together in a cohesive manner...

There is no doubt we need environmental regulations because industry cannot police themselves. The problem is there is no common sense or logic to many of the environmental rules that are coming out. Some examples from the electric industry - we are looking at facility improvements right now to comply with new EPA regs. One is to put a scrubber on a coal fired power plant to remove SO2 and NOx. This is going to be a big expense for us and while I don't like the cost or the impact on our rates from an environmental standpoint it makes sense. The technology is there, it works to reduce pollution, and it is going on a plant that runs 24/7. For comparison we are facing another rule that impacts diesel powered peaking generators. In our case these units run an average of 12 hours per year per unit. The most any one unit has run in the last 5 years was 36 hours, and 29 of those hours were due to an ice storm causing transmission system damage. The cost of this regulation vs. the hours of operation makes absolutely no sense. Our customers will see their bills go up an average of $7 a month for this rule for almost no environmental benefit because of the limited use. The other problem is the EPA is looking at another rule that would impact these generators but won't finalize it for 1-2 years. So we have to decide whether to spend money to modify these units to comply or retire them. The newest units will be modified but there are some that are questionable because of their age and size. For the current EPA rule the economics are there. But if you add new rules in 2 years the economics might not be here. So how do I decide whether or not to make the investment? Why can't EPA pick a subject like diesel generators and say we are going to make all the rules right now and we won't do anything again for 10 years? At least then we could make some decisions.

4. I kinda agree. Sure some people are saving because they're expecting an economic armageddon, but we wouldn't be expecting an economic armageddon if companies would stop saving all their profits and start reinvesting some of it back in the pockets of their middle-class employees. I don't know how they expect the economy to grow when the money isn't being recirculated back into the hands of the people who spend it.

See answer to #2 above.

5. Again, fundamental disagreement that I'll expand on tomorrow. I understand there needs to be a balance between economic and environmental policies, but green energy is no farce (as proven by the long-term savings of many companies who invested in it years ago); I don't have much of a problem with using coal, but you have to understand that there's a reason their lobbyists have been trying to limit green energy for years now, and it's because they know it's far superior to their product. The common argument I hear is that if they think green energy is more profitable, they would be doing it right now. However, one forgotten fact is that coal executives were short-sighted when green energy was in its infancy. Players like GE invested in it, but coal companies just shrugged it off because of their "good-ole boys" culture at the time (that still very much exists). When green energy began growing (specifically in the early 90s) and proving with statistics that it was a better and cleaner source of energy, coal companies began to realize the threat that they had overlooked years ago was now at their doorstep and that they were far behind in the infrastructure needed to catch up with the companies that had invested in it. And since then, their lobbyist have successfully been able to pull off the amazing lie on America that green energy is a farce. Alright, I'll continue tomorrow evening...

Are you talking about green energy or energy efficiency? Energy efficiency is a good thing and should be promoted more than it is. Green energy can be a good thing and can be part of the solution. However green energy is not the solution. There has to be a mix. The hot weather in the last week is a perfect example. Our utility set a new all time peak on one of those days. About 10% of our generation nameplate capacity is green energy (wind). Guess how much green energy we were producing at that time. 0.009 of nameplate. Enough to power about 25 of the 25,000 customers we have. Who wants rolling blackouts?

[ODUsmitty]

When Obama campaigned, he talked about the emissions regulations forthcoming on the fossil power plants in the country. I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like "the power companies can feel free to build these plants, but it will bankrupt them to operate them..."

Our greatest natural energy resource is still coal. and NOx/SOx regulations are killing the coal-burners, and the FGD scrubber's have a physical footprint nearly as large as the power plant itself. Its insane.

I agree wholeheartedly with HI54UNI in his assessment about green energy. Efficiency is king, but don't throw away your best current option for energy until a viable and economically-feasible alternative is found.

As usual, we continue to fuck ourselves with regulation, mandates, drilling bans, lack of NRC licensing renewals, etc. while the rest of the world, particularly China, just watches and laughs their collective asses off.

[DSUrocks07]

I'm just gonna leave this here...

http://current.com/shows/countdown/vide ... -debt-deal

[bulldog10jw]

I'm just gonna leave this here...

http://current.com/shows/countdown/vide ... -debt-deal

Keith Olbermann ?