Unemployment, and so on

[Jester]

Spillovers from the other thread, which has wandered waaay off topic...

Not all sectors are suffering. Construction and manufacturing are worst off.

Oh, right. Mining/logging, education and health care are up. One tiny sector, and two service sectors largely on the public dime. Every other sector is down, some by a little, some by a lot. Overall, employment is *way* down.

Because civil conversation is forwarded by pulling out figures of speech and deliberately misrepresenting what was said. I said the government blew the money on something that got us nothing in return. If I said someone was as stubborn as a mule, I'm not calling them an ass.

I'm saying they spent the money on keeping unemployed people on unemployment insurance, so they don't get kicked out of their homes, or starve to death. You're saying this is "blowing" the money on "something that got us nothing." I'm all for civil conversation, but I'm not misrepresenting you - I'm repeating what you've said, tone and meaning intact. If you think that money was a waste, you're free to believe that, but don't be surprised when other people find this not only incorrect, but more than a little cruel.

They didn't invest in construction or really promoting domestic manufacturing, but instead paid out billions for people to do nothing.

Well, they did actually pour quite a lot of money into infrastructure. Nowhere near enough, but then, there are those who oppose all such spending, including on "shovel-ready" projects. Apparently the only stimulus Republicans will agree to is tax cuts, full stop...

To be fair though, when Moody or S&P rate a derivative's risk as AAA, why would you necessarily question it?

Because you don't understand what you're buying? Because a large financial institution is supposed to be more diligent with other peoples' billions than just taking off-the-shelf ratings at face value? Because the ratings agencies are famous in the industry for getting the analysts who can't hack it at Goldman or Merrill? Because hedge funds and insurance companies are, by definition, in the business of managing risk?

Actually, I've always maintained that if government actually knew what they were doing, it would be beneficial to allow them to be the spender of last resort. But, what you get instead are debacles like Solyndra, OptiSolar, or potential ones like Tonopah Solar Energy, or Mesquite Solar, etc.

Simply pointing to a few debacles is just cherry picking, since that's the fate of most businesses, private or otherwise. If government could guarantee that speculative, innovative companies would be successful, we'd have no need for capitalism at all. They can't, and neither can anyone else.

There are tremendous downside risks for bridges and/or tunnels collapsing, but for building an economy they are treading water. Do it if you have to, but they don't move us closer to our goals. Although, much better to do even this than to pay people to do nothing.

Treading water is the right thing to do when you're drowning. Look at the construction sector. Look at the unemployment rate. Look at capacity utilization in steel, concrete, and so on. Tell me they wouldn't be able to make good with some bridges to build, some roads to repair. And yes, build energy infrastructure. Build nuclear power plants. Upgrade the energy grid. No time like the present to spend on the future.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm saying they spent the money on keeping unemployed people on unemployment insurance, so they don't get kicked out of their homes, or starve to death. You're saying this is "blowing" the money on "something that got us nothing." I'm all for civil conversation, but I'm not misrepresenting you - I'm repeating what you've said, tone and meaning intact. If you think that money was a waste, you're free to believe that, but don't be surprised when other people find this not only incorrect, but more than a little cruel.

You are assuming that the trillion or so dollars was spent on paying people unemployment. My comments weren't directed at the pittances devoted to actually helping people...

To make your case, the economic policy institute wrote "Spending $65 billion on unemployment insurance extensions will increase GDP by an estimated $104.7 billion, which is roughly 0.7 percent of our $14.7 trillion GDP. This increase in GDP translates into 488,000 payroll jobs. In other words, extending the federally funded unemployment insurance extensions through 2011 would not only be a lifeline to the families of millions of unemployed workers, it also supports spending responsible for the existence of nearly half a million jobs."

Which is just simple math really. If it were all spent and used to sustain employment... $65 billion / $100,000 salary = 650,000 high end jobs. Or, $65 billion / $50,000 salary = 1.3 million average jobs.

The 2009 stimulus was $787 billion. And if you throw in the 36 billion for extending the other aid to keep people from starving, and etc. That leaves $686 of spending that went into things other than helping with unemployment and starvation.

The problem is simple really. During the nineties, and the naughts, we had huge increases in economic growth and hence tax revenue. The federal and states budgets swelled with new programs and spending to take advantage of the windfall. The recession curbed back revenue severely, and so a large part of the federal stimulus was used to balance the out of whack states budgets. Some states did the smart and responsible thing, which was to correct their spending in relation to their revenue. Most states, including mine, did nothing except take the federal money. Then, in 2010, we had the same problem and got bailed out by the feds again. In 2011 we had the same problem, but didn't get the same level of bailout. Each time, our state politicians were unable to make the hard decisions on creating a balanced budget.

They expected the economy to just snap back, like it did before. But, it didn't and they were unprepared for the "new normal".

Well, they did actually pour quite a lot of money into infrastructure. Nowhere near enough, but then, there are those who oppose all such spending, including on "shovel-ready" projects. Apparently the only stimulus Republicans will agree to is tax cuts, full stop...

Tax cuts as stimulus allow everyone to decide on a productive use for the money. Isn't it more democratic?

The problem with our government's approach was that it was half baked and tepid. The original stimulus bill devoted $36 billion for construction on "shovel ready" projects. They didn't really have the projects in mind, so they just put out the call for "shovel ready" projects and every kook and their brother in law submitted one.

I've argued this before... If Obama had led on one of his campaign promises, to transform the energy sector to become greener, and less fossil fuel dependent, then we'd be in a better place. Instead, they picked donor cronies to shower with huge loan guarantees. I'm talking about a comprehensive plan meeting measurable and tangible goals. So... Don't just mandate x% of vehicles will be electric by 2015, but step in and list the steps required to make it so. Don't just mandate that x% of coal fired plants will be replaced with solar or wind, step in to make a plan and follow it through.

But, instead, we had a shoddily cast together miasma of government spending wish lists that increased the size of an already unsustainable government bureaucracy, funneled reward money into the hands of big campaign donors, and did very little to give the economy any traction towards recovery. Then add into that mix the uncertainty of drastic changes to the health care obligations and drastic changes (Dodd/Frank) to the consumer credit industry, and financial sectors, and you get the present result of 3 years of a stagnant economy, with suffering and hopeless people protesting variously our government, corporations, or just the damned wealthy.

Because you don't understand what you're buying? Because a large financial institution is supposed to be more diligent with other peoples' billions than just taking off-the-shelf ratings at face value? Because the ratings agencies are famous in the industry for getting the analysts who can't hack it at Goldman or Merrill? Because hedge funds and insurance companies are, by definition, in the business of managing risk?

Yes. Maybe. I don't know. No, everyone has their specialty so it's not like one insurance is like any other. You need to trust that the people who's job it is, are actually doing theirs. Otherwise, it's no better than palmistry.

Simply pointing to a few debacles is just cherry picking, since that's the fate of most businesses, private or otherwise. If government could guarantee that speculative, innovative companies would be successful, we'd have no need for capitalism at all. They can't, and neither can anyone else.

You say cherry picking, but I see them as examples of waste, fraud, cronyism, and abuse. Or, all of the above. Can you honestly with a straight face tell me that our government is objectively handing out this money according to sound financial investment principles, and without being influenced by politics? The mounting evidence shows exactly the opposite. Even the checks to prevent bad investments are being rode roughshod.

Treading water is the right thing to do when you're drowning. Look at the construction sector. Look at the unemployment rate. Look at capacity utilization in steel, concrete, and so on. Tell me they wouldn't be able to make good with some bridges to build, some roads to repair. And yes, build energy infrastructure. Build nuclear power plants. Upgrade the energy grid. No time like the present to spend on the future.

We agree on that part. The original stimulus bill devoted $36 billion for construction.

Had we instead spent $200 billion per year since 2009 on just these things we'd have made a bigger dent in improving the economy. The construction industry in the US was about $615 billion. And... they could have done something in 2009 to stabilize the housing market, but instead it was pretty much frozen to help keep people in their homes and protect the politicians from the ire of an electorate dispossessed of housing. They could have done a better job in broaching a deal between lenders and mortgage holders to deflate the bubble and still get the best deal for all parties concerned. Instead, they tried to re-inflate the bubble and bring housing prices back up.

[Kevin]

I've argued this before... If Obama had led on one of his campaign promises, to transform the energy sector to become greener, and less fossil fuel dependent, then we'd be in a better place. Instead, they picked donor cronies to shower with huge loan guarantees. I'm talking about a comprehensive plan meeting measurable and tangible goals. So... Don't just mandate x% of vehicles will be electric by 2015, but step in and list the steps required to make it so. Don't just mandate that x% of coal fired plants will be replaced with solar or wind, step in to make a plan and follow it through.

Isn't that government regulation in about as extreme a form as it can be?

If you say x% of vehicles need to be electric by such and such you are letting private industry invent the means and methods to do so. You might even force the creation of a new job sector.

If you say we are doing this by doing this then this then this, isn't the government controlling private industry? I can bet that if the current administration said we're replacing this coal plant in West Virginia with a hydro electric plant that people would have been up in arms! YOU CAN'T JUST CLOSE MY PLANT! HOW DARE YOU INFRINGE ON PRIVATE INDUSTRY!

Please explain to me how they could do what you want and not get slammed, likely from the same people that are slamming them now, for doing what you wanted?

[kandrathe]

Isn't that government regulation in about as extreme a form as it can be?

If you say x% of vehicles need to be electric by such and such you are letting private industry invent the means and methods to do so. You might even force the creation of a new job sector.

They do this already and set the bar higher without the foresight of knowing if the bar is achievable. CAFE and EPA standards have resulted in a system where US automakers were forced out of the small and midsized car market. They instead built trucks, SUV's and vans to avoid stringent government requirements.

If you say we are doing this by doing this then this then this, isn't the government controlling private industry? I can bet that if the current administration said we're replacing this coal plant in West Virginia with a hydro electric plant that people would have been up in arms! YOU CAN'T JUST CLOSE MY PLANT! HOW DARE YOU INFRINGE ON PRIVATE INDUSTRY!

Please explain to me how they could do what you want and not get slammed, likely from the same people that are slamming them now, for doing what you wanted?

There is a nice way and a not so nice way. I'm not barring private industry from getting on board. What I'm proposing is that you chart a path to a better future as defined by X, Y and Z. In this case, X, Y, and Z are related to the detriments of dependance on fossil fuels, and the benefits of relying more and more on renewable energy sources. Obama previously championed that vision.

Specifically, Virginia... I'd approach Dominion (among others) and work with them to figure out what barriers they face in converting away from coal and oil fired generation. It needs to make economic sense (short & long term) for them and still maintain their generation cost per KW. Customers would expect prices to remain fairly stable.

The government can do many more things to make this future happen quicker, such as;

1) Speed up the approval process for transmission lines over federal and state land.
2) Increase grant funding for research and development of renewable energy sources, and stuff like solid state batteries. Figure out how to get behind proven technologies to get them to market quicker.
3) Give power companies a tax break per megawatt of renewable energy generated (this puts the decisions on capital investment, and development of the methods used into the hands of the power company).
4) Use domestic natural gas as a stepping stone to a solar and wind future. We have huge supplies of domestic natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil, or coal. Give power companies a tax break for converting to natural gas powered generation plants. And... avoid the whole fracking ecological mess.
5) Promote domestic heating and water heating to convert to geothermal heat pumps, and solar where feasible. We need to make fuel oil, and eventually natural gas burning furnaces an anachronism just as was done to coal.

If you want people to convert to using electric cars, you need to do two things well. First, make it feasible for people to commute to work everyday, and second, make it affordable. The cars need to be capable of going two hours a day between charges, and the price of electricity needs to be as cheap or cheaper than gasoline.

Obama captivated people during the 2008 campaign with his vision of energy sector transformation. So far he's said he's for a variety of strategies like increasing domestic oil drilling (while not renewing leases), and increasing subsidies for bio-fuels. He attempted during his first six months to launch cap & trade, which thankfully died the death it deserved before getting any traction (as I've railed on previously).

I'd just like to see the administration develop a comprehensive clear, realistic plan that is then well executed. He needs to avoid the partisan man traps, and champion a strategy that most people can rally toward.

Political battles to avoid would include, cap/trade, oil drilling, fracking, and unfunded mandates on states or industries.

[Kevin]

The government can do many more things to make this future happen quicker, such as;

1) Speed up the approval process for transmission lines over federal and state land.
2) Increase grant funding for research and development of renewable energy sources, and stuff like solid state batteries. Figure out how to get behind proven technologies to get them to market quicker.
3) Give power companies a tax break per megawatt of renewable energy generated (this puts the decisions on capital investment, and development of the methods used into the hands of the power company).
4) Use domestic natural gas as a stepping stone to a solar and wind future. We have huge supplies of domestic natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil, or coal. Give power companies a tax break for converting to natural gas powered generation plants. And... avoid the whole fracking ecological mess.
5) Promote domestic heating and water heating to convert to geothermal heat pumps, and solar where feasible. We need to make fuel oil, and eventually natural gas burning furnaces an anachronism just as was done to coal.

I'd just like to see the administration develop a comprehensive clear, realistic plan that is then well executed. He needs to avoid the partisan man traps, and champion a strategy that most people can rally toward.

Political battles to avoid would include, cap/trade, oil drilling, fracking, and unfunded mandates on states or industries.

1) I'm alright with this, though Obama did lift some of the regulations that were effectively preventing any new nuclear plants, which is a similar vein to this and your #4. It's not gas, but it is something to help bridge. Some of what the admin wanted to do to loosen regs was stopped.

2) So you weren't happy with investing in energy companies a few posts back but you want them to invest in energy companies? Oh and your point is fragments as investing in proven techs and investing in R&D are not the same thing. Speculating on unproven R&D vs incremental improvement R&D is high risk but also has a higher reward ceiling too.

3) I seem to recall you being against tax breaks for individuals that set-up renewable sources that feed into the grid. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

4) It's a bridge, but it's a short bridge that does very little to advance us. It's still a fossil fuel. I'm not saying nuclear is significantly better of a bridge, but at least if you put more behind that bridge and allow the R&D with improving it that has stagnated as well, you are going down a slightly different road.

5) Wasn't there a plan along these lines that was shot down by congress already? I thought it was kind of the same lines as cash for clunkers, but it was to encourage folks to move to more efficient appliances and there was also extra incentives to move to renewables.

I'd just like to see the administration develop a comprehensive clear, realistic plan that is then well executed. He needs to avoid the partisan man traps, and champion a strategy that most people can rally toward.

Political battles to avoid would include, cap/trade, oil drilling, fracking, and unfunded mandates on states or industries.

Really? Do you really think that is possible? A strategy that most people can rally toward. Did you really keep a straight face when you said that? Have you not watched how congress has worked the last 20 years (that's all the time I can actually remember).

Do you think if Obama said "I'm cutting regulations on power lines, investing in pushing for natural gas and nuclear, only investing in renewables that have met blah blah requirements that are decided on these factors so that we know they are proven investments, etc." Do you really think someone ELSE isn't going to say "This is crap we need to open the drilling in Alaska or wherever else." Do you REALLY think those battles can be avoided? Do you think if he just ignores them and railroads it through (hello healthcare bill) that it then won't get constantly attacked after the fact?

You the man who just recently said that are very few politicians who aren't self serving, are trying to make a point that this is what should happen? That a plan can be created that isn't going to be attacked and potentially derailed.

[kandrathe]

2) So you weren't happy with investing in energy companies a few posts back but you want them to invest in energy companies? Oh and your point is fragments as investing in proven techs and investing in R&D are not the same thing. Speculating on unproven R&D vs incremental improvement R&D is high risk but also has a higher reward ceiling too.

The difference is in providing the upfront funding (loan guarantee) for risky capital outlays, as opposed to remunerating companies for proven success. Providing private and public grants to develop new methods will bring better products to market sooner. Even for consumers... I don't need a government loan to help me convert to a geothermal heat pump, just allow my power company to provide the conversion and I'll pay the same price I do now until their investment is returned.

3) I seem to recall you being against tax breaks for individuals that set-up renewable sources that feed into the grid. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

I'm against them when they don't make any sense. Solar is not a good power system for Alaska in winter. Moving California, Nevada, Arizona, and etc. to solar makes sense.

4) It's a bridge, but it's a short bridge that does very little to advance us. It's still a fossil fuel. I'm not saying nuclear is significantly better of a bridge, but at least if you put more behind that bridge and allow the R&D with improving it that has stagnated as well, you are going down a slightly different road.

I'm assuming that they are boiling water generators, so moving from one heat producing combustible with a smokestack to a different one would be an easier retrofit. Cleaner combustion for a decade or two at least.

5) Wasn't there a plan along these lines that was shot down by congress already? I thought it was kind of the same lines as cash for clunkers, but it was to encourage folks to move to more efficient appliances and there was also extra incentives to move to renewable.

It wasn't shot down. In 2008, there was a huge comprehensive overhaul to the tax incentives plan for energy star and renewable energy.

I think much of the legislation is already in place. I just don't think the Government is using the bully pulpit to encourage people to take advantage of the program.

Really? Do you really think that is possible? A strategy that most people can rally toward. Did you really keep a straight face when you said that? Have you not watched how congress has worked the last 20 years (that's all the time I can actually remember).

Yes, and yes. The way congress works is to wait until your side has the advantage, then undo everything the other side did for the past 4 years and implement your own partisan crap. So, I'm saying that for a man who was going to be a "unifier" he needs to step beyond the partisan hot buttons.

Do you think if Obama said "I'm cutting regulations on power lines, investing in pushing for natural gas and nuclear, only investing in renewables that have met blah blah requirements that are decided on these factors so that we know they are proven investments, etc."

First, I'm not proposing cutting regulations on anything, although that might also be a good idea. For power lines, the usual time period to get a single power line approved and built crossing federal land might take 5 or more years. How about we just target slimming down the approval process to a year instead. Once projects are approved, they still require 2 to 4 years to build.

Do you really think someone ELSE isn't going to say "This is crap we need to open the drilling in Alaska or wherever else." Do you REALLY think those battles can be avoided? Do you think if he just ignores them and railroads it through (hello healthcare bill) that it then won't get constantly attacked after the fact?

Someone is going to press for drilling in ANWAR, even if no one in the US used gasoline anymore. Obama should avoid getting into the middle of it, unless a bill came to his desk, and then he should sign, or veto according to his conscience. At the press conferences, if I were Obama, I'd direct my press secretary to indicate my views on ANWAR if that question were asked; something like, there are environmental concerns, and the potential amount of oil recovered would not impact domestic supply sufficient to offset our other concerns. It needs to be framed simply as a risk/reward equation, where for Obama, the risk is greater than the reward. So, no, don't ramrod things through Congress. Build a bipartisan approach that few are willing to stand against. JFK inspired us to go to a dead rock in space, and recover very little except the technology to get there and back again.

You the man who just recently said that are very few politicians who aren't self serving, are trying to make a point that this is what should happen? That a plan can be created that isn't going to be attacked and potentially derailed.

I'm thinking of a leader, like JFK, or Reagan, who can avoid the pitfalls of partisanship, inspire the people with a solid vision, then get it done. For a president who wants to get re-elected, being a good, or great leader is also self-serving. I'm just asking him to stand up and be that leader, and if not, then step aside and let someone into the office who will make a difference.

An example of Obama, the not so good leader, is his recent proposed Jobs bill. His guy in the Senate, Harry Reid, didn't even go to bat for it within the Democratic ranks. It was an example of the worst of partisan politics, and a probably merely a cynical campaigning stunt meant to further the partisan divide and heat up the Democrat base.

[Kevin]

JFK inspired us to go to a dead rock in space, and recover very little except the technology to get there and back again.

And where are our current Russians that will own space if we don't prove that we are better and thus get to the moon first? Where is the great communist will over run us if we DON'T get to the moon? Do you want to turn China into that? I suppose you could, but JFK had a situation that he could use to further what in some cases were personal goals. Do you want someone to do what Bush did in sending us to Iraq, because that is the most recent example that parallels.

You do also realize that the House and Senate were democrat for all of Kennedy's time in office too right? He simply didn't have to do some of the political wrangling that others (including Reagan so I know you aren't blind to the point) did either.

I'm thinking of a leader, like JFK, or Reagan, who can avoid the pitfalls of partisanship, inspire the people with a solid vision, then get it done. For a president who wants to get re-elected, being a good, or great leader is also self-serving. I'm just asking him to stand up and be that leader, and if not, then step aside and let someone into the office who will make a difference.

So again you are looking for getting something railroaded. IT'S MY VISION YOU WILL FALL IN LINE! You do realize that JFK and Reagan both did stuff like that to get what they wanted. If someone in their own party didn't agree they drove them out of the party. I'm not saying there isn't benefit to that. But it's a different type of driving on rails.

Personally I'd rather see the President have less power and Congress have more in general. I think that keeps things more transparent and in better balance. The three branches are not working out right now as envisioned, every president has created more power for position. I'm not sure I want another one who through "force of will" ends up getting more power, because the way the system works that is pretty much the only way, in practice, that someone could do what you want.

I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm having a hard time thinking of a presidential candidate that I've really liked in my lifetime. I'm not sure the man you are clamoring for exists. I didn't mind Reagan and he did get things through a "hostile" congress at times though Star Wars was a boondoggle, I really don't think "trickle down" economics works, and the "war on drugs" that started under his admin seems like just the type of thing you hate as well (and I agree with you on that too, it was a big waste of money).

I didn't and don't follow stuff closely to know if people opposed to your examples of JFK and Reagan flat out stated there only goal was to make sure that anything they wanted to happen failed like current Republicans have said. One of the few ways out of the an argument where both sides are saying my way or the highway is to wait it out. There aren't a lot of ways to back out of those types of statements without being perceived as "weak" by people that you may want as allies at some point.

[NuurAbSaal]

dead rock in space

Good thing you put that ", and so on" bit in the title .

take care
Tarabulus

[Tris]

Living in an area with rediculously low unemployment, we have kind of the opposite problem to most of the United States. There are, as of about 2 months ago, an estimated nine (9) jobs for every job applicant out here.

Pay for most of these jobs is quite high. Some more, um, er, disreputable employments even pay well: i.e. strippers out here are making up to $2,000/night doing "exotic dancing." Thank you CNN.com for pointing that out on your front page this morning... groan.

However, this has left a serious deficit in maintenance, county, and other necessary positions. Perhaps the Feds should winterize some FEMA trailers and bring out some folks who are collecting unemployment to come out to rural areas and do maintenance, etc. We all know that the US infrastructure kind of stinks in places. I'd bet money on heavy equipment operators, construction workers, etc. being on unemployment. We could all use some extra snow removal

[DeeBye]

JFK inspired us to go to a dead rock in space, and recover very little except the technology to get there and back again.

I've seen some crazy things posted here, but wow.

[kandrathe]

I've seen some crazy things posted here, but wow.

Don't get me wrong. I like science, and I'm a huge fan of spreading the human race beyond the Earth. But... in the context of unemployment, suffering and starvation, what has the Apollo program done for the impoverished of Appalachia? Better tires? Watch NASCAR on a flat screen at the bar in Bugswallow?

From 1962 to 1972, when the last Apollo mission landed on the moon, space-related activities got 59% of non-defense government R&D spending. Arguably, certain technologies were advanced quicker, like integrated circuitry -- but, we'd have gotten there with or without NASA's portion of the demand.

What if... We'd spent just half that money on developing a better energy supply? Would we have saved the Earth from a decade or more of man-made climate change?

I'm just trying to be objective about it. It was a huge us versus them nationalistic pissing contest aiming at the Moon. What we got out of it was the advancement in technologies needed in getting there. So, let's just set ourselves some crazy goals -- how about we challenge China to see who will be the first to put boots on Uranus?

[Tris]

Put boots on Uranus. Well, that wouldn't require manned flight, just a payload of boots

You're right. We should have taken the opportunity to put a thermo-nuclear weapons platform up there while we were at it Maybe tuck a few silos into those craters. They would be a b!tch to service though...

Nobody seems to want a better energy supply. I live in ND, we pump oil and mine coal. We burn *lots* of coal near Bismarck/Washburn and along the Missouri River in West Central ND. It's "clean coal," um... yeah... umm. You can see the haze for miles and miles. Only thing worse was some god-awful, had to have been coal-fired, operation in the Souris River basin in Minot, that from a single small smoke stack cast a pall over the area.

We do have lots of windmills out here, but nowhere near the required generating capacity. Also have Garrison Dam hydroplant.

IMO, we would be much better off abandoning "clean coal" and going to nuclear

[kandrathe]

IMO, we would be much better off abandoning "clean coal" and going to nuclear

Ditto.

There really isn't "clean" coal. Just "cleaned" coal. More doublethink cognitive dissonance... And, more like coal industry propaganda... which is why coal fly ash waste is not listed as an environmental pollutant.

The hazardous waste just doesn't *all* go up the smokestack and shower us with death.

The mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, selenium and other heavy metals still need to go somewhere, and mostly that is back to a landfill, where the toxins can leech into the groundwater. Or, if your TVA(a federal government owned facility), then your coal ash sludge dike breaks and it just flows over the ground into the water system directly.

[DeeBye]

IMO, we would be much better off abandoning "clean coal" and going to nuclear

I agree. As a side-benefit it also increases the chance of a horrible accident that will somehow grant me super powers.

[kandrathe]

I agree. As a side-benefit it also increases the chance of a horrible accident that will somehow grant me super powers.

Young man... I'm afraid you've suffered some of the worst of what our... mighty little friend, the atom has to offer! It can power a city... or level it. Human-insect mutation is far from an exact science. But there are some things we do know... You'll grow. (tsk tsk) Become bigger...!

[Taem]

I typed this out on work computer and "sent" when the network went down... I printed a copy so I could repost whag I wrote from home, yet here I am at my daughters plah practice... so I guess I'll just post it from mg phone:

Oh wow, Herman Cain is such a joke as a political contender, but he's currently leading the polls for Republican contenders, despite his sexual harrasment misconduct and terrinle PR involving that incident. You know why, don't you? The public is fed up with the way politicians are currently running the White House and want some fresh blood in there, but this guy...

So what does this have to do with unemployment? The correlation I'm seeing here is lack of jobs = people unhappy with current status quo and current public officials, so they are leaning towards the most unorthodox candidate out there. Why? I believe America is ready for change. Maybe even the worl is ready. I just hope the public thinks before it jumps else you pave the way for madmen and imbeciles to take office.

My prediction is this will inevitably lead to Obama getting reelected when the Republicans have someone like Herman going up against someone like Obama in the speeches; Obama will mop the floor with any of those contenders with his suave personalie. Regardless, this is lining up to be a very interesting upcoming election year.

[DeeBye]

My prediction is this will inevitably lead to Obama getting reelected when the Republicans have someone like Herman going up against someone like Obama in the speeches; Obama will mop the floor with any of those contenders with his suave personalie. Regardless, this is lining up to be a very interesting upcoming election year.

American politics is absolutely hilarious for me to watch. I've watched a few of the republican debates and they are endlessly fascinating, in a "train wreck" kind of way. Apparently one guy has no chance because even though he is "Christian", he's not the "right kind" of Christian.

[eppie]

American politics is absolutely hilarious for me to watch. I've watched a few of the republican debates and they are endlessly fascinating, in a "train wreck" kind of way. Apparently one guy has no chance because even though he is "Christian", he's not the "right kind" of Christian.

It would be hilarious if we were talking about Macedonia or Belgium but sadly we are talking about a superpower that really likes to tell other countries what to do.
So more than hilarious this is sad and very very bad.

[kandrathe]

...and very very bad.

I'm not sure why the Republicans are doing it this way. It's totally up to the Republican establishment how they choose their candidate, and so their method of exposing them all to a public "debate" where the press get to flay them publicly. It's more like a circular firing squad.

It's obvious that Romney has the better campaign skills, having been through it 4 years ago. Perry, not so much. Cain, not at all. The others are hanging in there waiting for their chance to surge forward. It will be interesting to see who makes it into February, when the real campaign gets moving. I'm just glad certain people dropped out already, like Donald Trump.

[FireIceTalon]

Our political culture in general is a joke. A few people vote based on the issues, but most vote based on either 1 trivial social issue or whether or not they think they can have a beer with the guy. Americans, for the most part, are shallow when it comes to politics. Sad but true. I mean, are gay rights, abortion, and such an issue in the rest of the western world? We still got idiots who think the president wasn't born here. I mean, come the fuck on already.....he already proved he was, and they are still trying to drill this silliness into peoples heads.