Wednesday, April 25, 2012

As Richard Alley was saying

You have now had a discussion or a debate here between people who are giving you the blue one and people giving you the green one. This is certainly not both sides. If you want both sides, we would have to have somebody in here screaming a conniption fit on the red end, because you are hearing a very optimistic side
Evidently someone in Washington was listening to the guy on the red end.  Rolling Stone has an interview with President Obama, in which the subject of climate change came up.  Eli has bolded two key parts of the answer
James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist, has said this about the Keystone pipeline: that if the pipeline goes through and we burn tar sands in Canada, it's "game over" for the planet. What's your reaction to that statement?

James Hansen is a scientist who has done an enormous amount not only to understand climate change, but also to help publicize the issue. I have the utmost respect for scientists. But it's important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do. That's their national policy, they're pursuing it. With respect to Keystone, my goal has been to have an honest process, and I have adamantly objected to Congress trying to circumvent a process that was well-established not just under Democratic administrations, but also under Republican administrations.

The reason that Keystone got so much attention is not because that particular pipeline is a make-or-break issue for climate change, but because those who have looked at the science of climate change are scared and concerned about a general lack of sufficient movement to deal with the problem. Frankly, I'm deeply concerned that internationally, we have not made as much progress as we need to make. Within the constraints of this Congress, we've tried to do a whole range of things, administratively, that are making a difference – doubling fuel-efficiency standards on cars is going to take a whole lot of carbon out of our atmosphere. We're going to continue to push on energy efficiency, and renewable energy standards, and the promotion of green energy. But there is no doubt that we have a lot more work to do.

Part of the challenge over these past three years has been that people's number-one priority is finding a job and paying the mortgage and dealing with high gas prices. In that environment, it's been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate-change science. I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way. That there's a way to do it that is entirely compatible with strong economic growth and job creation – that taking steps, for example, to retrofit buildings all across America with existing technologies will reduce our power usage by 15 or 20 percent. That's an achievable goal, and we should be getting started now.

70 comments:

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

I fear that it may be a mistake for Obama to emphasize climate change in the campaign. It will be a vote loser. The average American is simply too stupid and spoiled to do what is needed, however little that maybe.

I've reached the point where I think that the only progress we will make has to come from technological solutions. I doubt this will be enough. I suspect our progeny are in for a rough ride. However, I suspect that the only hope for humanity is for the 0.1% who have a brain to rescue the other 99.9%...as always.

John said...

1) Blogger emphasizes Hansen's comment that building the Keystone pipeline amounts to "game over" for the planet.

2) President compliments Hansen for his science and publicizing (getting arrested for?) "the issue."

3) President then contradicts Hansen's warning: "that Keystone got so much attention is NOT because that particular pipeline is a make-or-break issue for climate change ... " (my emphasis)

4) President recently went to Cushing OK to urge that "a company called TransCanada," (avoiding the word "Keystone") should be given expedited approval for a pipeline from there to the Gulf Coast refineries. http://tinyurl.com/cpn7h5d

5) Said pipeline is the south half of the tar sands pipeline, of course. The north portion will be approved as soon as Nebraska settles on a route avoiding its Sand Hills.

6) President pledges to "voice his beliefs" on this important issue during the campaign, sending tingles down the spines of admirers who have no political expectations beyond "four more years."

7) Apparently, president's beliefs are that Hansen, in particular, and the rest of the earth, in general, can go suck eggs.

I find it even more insulting to be jerked around by a fellow who can actually speak the language.

John Puma

Anonymous said...

"it's been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate-change science."

Pathetic - Obama (& you apparently) think a few blogs run by unpaid skeptics constitute a multi-million dollar campaign. Climate science has collapsed under its own arrogance, failed predictions, and disregard for uncertainty.

J Bowers said...

"Obama (& you apparently) think a few blogs run by unpaid skeptics constitute a multi-million dollar campaign."

State Policy Network includes the likes of ALEC and Heartland. Probably receives around half a billion bucks per year, if you go by Heartland and take THEIR word for it that they're poverty stricken at $4m p.a. Bob Fergusson of SPPI gets up to $300,000 in salary and bonuses. How many advisory boards are Baliunas and Soon on, worldwide?

Not all US denialist shill tanks are part of SPN, either.

Steve Bloom said...

Shorter Obama: Expect nothing important in my second term either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see anything at all, and there have been individual actions worth applauding. Unfortunately, relative to the urgency of the situation, those actions fall far short of what is needed, both individually and in the aggregate.

Steve Bloom said...

Just to add that I take that last bolded phrase as a recognition that it will be possible to make hay against Romney using the climate change issue, noting that just a few days ago a debate audience in Alberta roundly booed the leader of the wingnut Wildrose Alliance when she questioned the reality of the science. That would be more good than bad, although I still don't take it as an indication Obama will try to step up to the plate in a second term.

Andy S said...

Obama:"But it's important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do."

That's not true. Without export pipelines to the Pacific (and the plans to build these are being strongly opposed in British Columbia) the US remains the only market for the bitumen. If the US imposed a carbon tax, or refused imports of bitumen, then Canadians would not be able to move forward with developing the tar sands.

Miguelito said...

If the oil doesn't come from the oil sands, it's going to come from somewhere else, because, like the War on Drugs, the U.S. has an addiction problem and somebody will feed it as long as the demand for it is there. Offshore Gulf of Mexico. Venezuela or Nigeria, which also have high carbon footprints. Emerging tight oil and shale oil within the U.S. and Canada. Other pipeline projects are coming out of the woodwork whether Keystone XL gets approved or not. Thus, carbon emissions related to consumption of gasoline are going to continue to rise.

Overall, what's really needed is a policy to cut all gasoline and diesel consumption, not just target the oil sands. Given that legislation isn't possible in the House and Senate because of Republican obstructionism, we can take cues on how to do this elsewhere.

For example, we can learn lessons by Obama's actions through the EPA to: 1) force coal-fired power plants to shut down unless they meet certain emissions standards; and 2) force the natural gas industry to cut emissions by flaring or capturing all post-frack gas flow from high-pressure gas wells and to decrease fugitive gas emitted from facilities like pipelines and compressor stations.

It's piecemeal actions like those that can start significant progress now and fit into any true carbon legislation when it emerges later.

How can it work for diesel and gasoline? Forced reduction of NO2 and particulate emissions from all vehicles or certain sectors in the name of reducing smog, which would encourage electric or hybrid vehicles. There are also higher fuel-efficiency standards, which Obama's already imposed. There are a multitude of ways this can be done in the meantime.

There's still hope, but I just worry so much time and energy is being spent opposing Keystone XL that a whole lot of other opportunities are going to get missed by folks who have the know-how to get them done.

Anonymous said...

Get real, people. Congress is so entrenched, and the government so paralyzed by Republicans who are also global warming denialists, that expecting Obama to do it all, all by himself, is unrealistic.

Expecting him to make this a bell-weather issue is also unrealistic -- that's a sure-fire recipe to put a Republican global-warming denier (Mitt) in the oval office.

Stop dreaming about the President turning the situation around single-handed. Face the fact that as imperfect as he is on this issue, he's the best choice we've got for President. If you want ANY chance for progress, join the Obama campaign for president -- and spit in the eye of the Republicans who want to "wish it away."

Obama is not the problem here, people. Inhofe, Romney, Palin, the rest, are the problem. They best way to rebuke them is to re-elect Obama.

tamino said...

Get real, people. Congress is so entrenched, and the government so paralyzed by Republicans who are also global warming denialists, that expecting Obama to do it all, all by himself, is unrealistic.

Expecting him to make this a bell-weather issue is also unrealistic -- that's a sure-fire recipe to put a Republican global-warming denier (Mitt) in the oval office.

Stop dreaming about the President turning the situation around single-handed. Face the fact that as imperfect as he is on this issue, he's the best choice we've got for President. If you want ANY chance for progress, join the Obama campaign for president -- and spit in the eye of the Republicans who want to "wish it away."

Obama is not the problem here, people. Inhofe, Romney, Palin, the rest, are the problem. They best way to rebuke them is to re-elect Obama.

J Bowers said...

Protest votes are for small children. Just take a look at my now-double-dip homeland to see how they work out, where we're now even working disabled people to death. When faced with the choice of a scumbag, a bigger scumbag, and an outright evil bastard, it's usually best to go with the scumbag. Life just sometimes sucks.

Hank Roberts said...

My bet continues that once that pipeline right-of-way is established, you'll in the fullness of time see

1) the oil the US expects to drill out of the Canadian, er, ah, International, that's it, waterways along edge of the Arctic Ocean, and after that,

2) fresh water, for a lot more years than it'll take to suck that smidgen of petroleum.

Why let all that melting ice just run off into the ocean around Canada, eh? Put it into the Oglalla Aquifer, and Texas can always use more golf courses and lawns, and ...

Deech56 said...

What Tamino wrote. Also too, this is one area where Romney has tacked to the right and Obama has a chance to show the difference between them. This will happen for issue after issue as the Obama campaign has decided to show how far Romney is from the mainstream. Romney has boxed himself into a corner to win the GOP nomination and the Obama campaign wants him to stay there. I think they plan to take his Etch a Sketch away.

Anonymous said...

Polls show a division between Tea Party Republicans and moderate Republicans on climate change and renewable energy.

It might be a Democrat "wedge" issue that could wean more moderate votes over to Obama's side.

Don't forget that slavery was not defeated in the end by moralistic abolitionists, though they were a vanguard. Abraham Lincoln (the first actively anti-slavery President) was elected by a broad coalition of ordinary people who decided enough was enough and slavery just needed to stay where it was.

Toby

turboblocke said...

Frankly, I'm deeply concerned that internationally, we have not made as much progress as we need to make.

The rest of the world knows that the USA dragging its feet is one reason for the lack of international progress. Maybe someone should point this out to Obama.

Turboblocke

dhogaza said...

'The rest of the world knows that the USA dragging its feet is one reason for the lack of international progress. Maybe someone should point this out to Obama.'

More useful would be for the complainers to teach the President how to overcome the filibuster in the Senate.

Or a Republican majority in the House.

Oh, wait. He doesn't sit in the Senate. He doesn't sit in the House.

The line-item veto, passed in Clinton's time, was declared unconstitutional in Clinton's time, so that very effective weapon isn't available to him.

People tend to underestimate the President's power in foreign affairs, while simultaneousl vastly overestimating the President's power in domestic affairs.

I'm with Tamino and Deech56.

John Puma: feel free to let yourself be jerked around by a liar like Nader if it makes you feel better. The "no difference between Gore and W" line really worked out well for the country, didn't it?

J Bowers said...

(US) Public Support for Climate and Energy Policies in March 2012. PDF

Reality begins to trump quotemined emails and plotmined graphs. Royal Society in the morning, this survey in the afternoon. The stink tanks must be all of a flutter.

Anonymous said...

Tamino makes a great case on the ineptness of Obama, could not have done bettwer myself.

My kids play the "blame someone else" game a lot less than Obama.

Reagan worked with Democrats

Clinton work with Republicans


Obama is incompetent



Celery Eater

Russell said...

If only Nurse would dispatch May to groom Obama to succeed him as RS President!

J Bowers said...

"Clinton work with Republicans"

Ummm, not always. In fact, Climton was faced with the very same hostility as Obama, and let them hang themselves with their own partisanship before election time, IIRC. Hmmm....

Anonymous said...

J Bowers,

If your only concern is re-election, then I understand what you said.

However in the real world the resulting compromises of the 1990's between Clinton and the Republicans were the last time that really happened.



Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

Reagan got past the Democrat hostilities as did Clinton with the Republicans.

Obama is incompetent.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE doesn't disappoint. He utterly ignores the fact that the avowed aim of the Republican leadership is to ensure Obama is a one-term President--regardless of how it hurts the country.

The current class of Republicans is the most obstructionist and antagonistic group of legislators since the Mensheviks declared themselves to be the Bolsheviks.

Republicans have opposed even their own priorities if it would hurt Obama. Under the circumstances, he's at least played them to a draw.

Anonymous said...

A_ray forgets the huge Democrat majorities the first two years of Obama's term.


Obama is incompetent

Anonymous said...

FWIW I pray that when a_ray loses it, because of all the stupid morons in the world he only takes himself out and not anyone near him.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

Did someone mention murder? Richard Alley murders Johnny Cash.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Golly, CE, two posts for the price of one. Good to know the truth still stings a bit for you.

However, I notice that you conveniently forgot that the Senate requires a 60-vote majority, which the Democrats never really had due to corporate shill DINOs like Ben Nelson.

David B. Benson said...

Look about more widely. China's latest Coal Plan, for instance.

Michael Hauber said...

If Hansen is right then Canada is pursuing a course of action far more dangerous than Iraq's alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction could ever have been.

I'm personally 99% that Hansen is wrong, this is based on optimism and faith as much as a real understanding of the science. And the fact that no other scientist that I am aware of seems to support his claim.

But even a 1% chance he is right is deeply disturbing.

Brian said...

I think Hansen is making a political judgment, and I don't have any great deference for his political judgment.

I don't think talking climate helps or hurts Obama much given public opinion, which kind of thinks it's a problem, but isn't very excited about doing anything to address it. Given the neutral valence, Obama should talk about it, because he knows it's a problem, and talking helps. Big unknown to me though is how it plays in the battleground states.

I think Obama could've done more small-barrel initiatives, but the medium barrel ones like vehicle mpg, coal plants, protecting state-level climate laws, and gradually ratcheting the Clean Air Act against GHGs are things we can't afford to give up. We will if Romney's elected.

Anonymous said...

Michael Hauber.

Unfortunately, I think that Hansen is right, but not perhaps for the notion that people might take away - that the Keystone pipeline would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Rather, the significance of developing Keystone is that it reflects a wider continuance of humanity's thirst for gulping the remaining global reserves of oil (and coal) at a rate that simply shows no sign of being reduced. The simple fact is that if we were to have protected the future of the biosphere from the more grim effects of warming caused by 'greenhouse' gases, we should already be in the midst of an international program at least akin to the emergency measures enacted in the second world war.

That we are not at this stage of response is already a line in the sand, a conscious commitment by humans to take the well-being of scores of future generations, and of the integrity and resilience of the biosphere and its composite diversity, for our own transient and ephemeral indulgence.

That we are showing not even a hint of drawing any lines in the sand in the near-term, or even in the medium term, simply shows that today's people are consciously determined to add to the misery of future generations by piling more shit on top of the mountain that has already been shovelled, by stealing even more from the tenuous stocks of any remaining future resilience.

Basically, we've already FUBARed the planet's ecology: there's an entropy debt that is coming ever closer to being called, and thermodynamics is a banker - or more a loan shark - who always gets his due. Humans now only have the choice of how many fingers and toes they and their children will have broken...


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

You place too much value/weight on your words. You do not bother me in the least and I do not view those who disagree with me as "stupid morons" or "sworn enemies".


I see you have come up with another excuse for Obama's incompetence "Ben Nelson".

Why don't we just eliminate Congress and the Supreme Court and just let Obama take care of us as if we were his children, would that make you happy?


Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Ah, CE, so nice to know that I can count on you utterly ignoring the substance of my post.

Dude, I said that the Rethuglican leadership had made it their top priority to do whatever they could to make Obama fail--even if it hurt the country. They openly boasted about it! THAT is unprecedented. They wouldn't even raise the debt limit or pass a highway bill! Sounds to me like they (and maybe you) don't like having a President with skin darker than theirs.

J Bowers said...

"Dude, I said that the Rethuglican leadership had made it their top priority to do whatever they could to make Obama fail--even if it hurt the country. They openly boasted about it!"

...makes...

"Reagan worked with Democrats
Clinton work with Republicans
Obama is incompetent"


...pure comedy. CE needs to get out on the standup circuit. He would do well.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

I read what you said, but it so blatently dishonest I did not think it worth a response. I could make the same statement about "Democraps" and their attitude with George Bush and prior Republican Presidents, but that is a childish blame game ttake no responsibilty kind of attitude / way of life that you exhibit. I do not want to be or play a victim.


No Bowers, it makes what I said factual.




Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE, do you dispute that Mitch McConnell said his top priority was ensuring Obama was a one-term President?

Do you dispute that refusal to raise the debt ceiling is unprecedented?

Have you ever heard of a Congressman who didn't like a transport bill?

Where do you live--the Planet Fox?

Anonymous said...

"CE, do you dispute that Mitch McConnell said his top priority was ensuring Obama was a one-term President?"

Nope. So what. You do not think that is the goal of the opposing party? Perhaps you would have preferred McConnell just flat out said Obama is a liar as Reid did during the 2004 Election, again so what.


"Do you dispute that refusal to raise the debt ceiling is unprecedented?"

Yes. Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling. In fact he said at the time in 2006 "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem."


Oh he regrets in now, 5 years later when it is politically convenient, so we shall give the Republicans another 5 years to "take it back" or "regret"


Have you ever heard of a Senate not proposing budget for almost 1100 days before? It only requires 51 votes btw.


What else you got, because all that was pretty weak?



Celery Eater

Brian Dodge said...

Can the government permit Keystone XL despite the dangers posed by increase in CO2 emissions, then sometime in the future deny Keystone XXXXXL because of dangers posed by CO2 emissions? If the gummint permits Keystone XL, can they in the future turn around and mandate CCS for power plants? If they establish a precedent of dismissing global warming impacts of Keystone partners commercial activities, don't they have to give equal protection to other corporations(say, auto mfrs who find mileage standards onerous), especially since they are people too?

I don't think its so much about a line in the sand, but a precedent in law.

susan said...

Skipping the roughage consumption model, I hope people are aware of the latest Enbridge (tar sands) project which is joined to a "northeast corridor" energy project. Much as I love South Devon, I don't get there much but this is too close to home.

It's planned across Vermont and New Hampshire and ending up in a deep sea port, newly uncolded by climate change itself. Flxible at RC kindly provided a very informative link on Keystone East/New England:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Fyte6Am817Kao4L0Lpy_T3A7cjZ7p8ILaMac6fW_Ji0

Sadly, it looks like the usual exploitation of railroad cuts - I'd love to see the railroad transit updated and used.

EliRabett said...

Eli, is of the Keynesian school of politics, when the facts change, he changes his opinion. This, of course refers to the various votes on raising the US debt limit.

In 2000 with the given tax and spending structure, even in a recession, the US had eliminated the budget deficit and was on its way to reducing its debt. 2001 brought George Bush and the Republicans into control of both Houses of the US Congress. They passed huge tax cuts (and not so much spending if any at all).

With 9-11 and the start of the Afghan and Iraq wars (the latter being again a political choice unrelated to 9-11) a decision was made not to raise taxes but to put those costs off budget.

Then there was the expense of Medicare part D for drug costs, which was done in a way that favored the pharma companies. Again the costs were not covered from additional taxes.

So yes, Obama was right that the need to raise the debt limit when he was a Senator were a result of bad policy and political choices. He also knew that there were enough votes in the Senate to pass the debt limit without his vote, and he wanted to make it clear why there was a need to raise the debt limit through his vote.

Rabett Run now fast forwards to 2009, when again it was necessary to raise the debt limit. This was a result of the collapse of the US economy and the subsequent collapse of tax collection and also as a result of those bad policy choices made by Bush and the Republicans over eight years.

The facts changed. Obama's job changed.

J Bowers said...

I can understand why neocons would find a change of mind based on new evidence and cirumstances too difficult to fathom. Obama, as an example, has never been stupid enough to sign his name to anti-democratic, Faustian pledges, which would chain him to a single issue until the universe was too cold to emit light, lest he face the near omnipotent wrath of DC's most influential and dictatorial lobbyists.

dhogaza said...

"Clinton work with Republicans"

Yes, it was their close working relationship that led to his impeachment and near-conviction for diddling an intern.

CE lives in a fantasy alternative universe that I proudly do not share. Remember, CE, reality has a liberal bias. Even conservapedia agreed with that for the first six months of its existence, and there's no source as authoritative as that.

Anonymous said...

In 2000 with the given tax and spending structure, and raiding the SS Trust Fund, even in a recession, the US had eliminated the budget deficit, through illusion that fools people all the time and was on its way, though never getting there as the reckless policies of the 1990's created the dot com bubble to reducing its debt. 2001 brought George Bush and the Republicans into control of both Houses of the US Congress, but without 60 votes in the Senate they could not really do anything, ask a_ray or Bowers. They passed huge tax cuts (and not so much spending if any at all, as the Dems refused to allow any significant cuts).

With 9-11 and the start of the Afghan and Iraq wars (the latter being again a political choice made by both Democrats and Republicans unrelated to 9-11) a decision was made not to raise taxes but to put those costs off budget, fast forward to today and the Dems have not even proposed a budget in the Dem controlled Senate for 1100 days).



Then there was the expense of Medicare part D for drug costs, which was done in a way that favored the pharma companies. Again the costs were not covered from additional taxes the results of Republicans getting together with Democrats to support their ideas. Can we say NCLB?...


So yes, Obama was right that the need to raise the debt limit when he was a Senator were a result of bad policy and political choices, as the EXACT same bad policy and choices existed in 2011. He also knew that there were enough votes in the Senate to pass the debt limit without his vote, and he wanted to make it clear why there was a need to raise the debt limit through his vote, as he voted against it to show he was for it!

Rabett Run now fast forwards to 2009, uh 2011 when again it was necessary to raise the debt limit. This was a result of the collapse of the US economy and the subsequent collapse of tax collection and also as a result of those bad policy choices made by Bush, Clinton, Democrats, and the Republicans over 17 years.

The facts changed, because we like changing facts to fit our perceptions. Obama's job changed, unfortunately for all of us, a $5 trillion more in debt mistake. A shallow weak recovery, the weakest recovery after a recession in US history.


Added in what you honestly forgot to include, as I am sure you wanted to accurately reflect the historic record with the utmost care.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

"This was a result of the collapse of the US economy "

Due to too much deregulation. Hey, that's what the bankers said to the head of the IMF. To his face, unanimously.

J Bowers said...

And speaking of Faustian pacts, Grover Norquist gets a special mention in Mann and Ornstein's WP opinion piece, Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

"Norquist, meanwhile, founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 and rolled out his Taxpayer Protection Pledge the following year. The pledge, which binds its signers to never support a tax increase (that includes closing tax loopholes), had been signed as of last year by 238 of the 242 House Republicans and 41 of the 47 GOP senators, according to ATR. The Norquist tax pledge has led to other pledges, on issues such as climate change, that create additional litmus tests that box in moderates and make cross-party coalitions nearly impossible. For Republicans concerned about a primary challenge from the right, the failure to sign such pledges is simply too risky."

Brian Dodge said...

"the Dems have not even proposed a budget in the Dem controlled Senate for 1100 days)."

No Senate has EVER proposed a budget; that would be un-Constitutional. Section 7 Clause 1.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Brian said...

Brian Dodge - no, there's no problem regulating CO2 later. We used to permit lead in gas, now we don't.

I've mostly skipped CE's comments here, but I did see the one where he goes back to the game that if a few Democrats vote for something that the Republicans do, then the Dems are equally at fault. Somehow I've never been persuaded by that argument.

Anonymous said...

Brian dodge,

Your ignorance is outstanding.

Here let me rephrase for you then. The Dem controleed Senate has not voted on or adopted a Federal Budget in almost 1100 days, a record in US history.




Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

It is always interesting to get CE's perspective on things... but then, I've always loved funhouse mirrors.

CE will quote a single fact--usually true in a strict sense, but utterly devoid of context. He utterly ignores that the reason why there has been no budget passed is that the House has refused to even consider anything the Dems produce.

And meanwhile, the House passes budgets that supply only red meat to the party faithful.

Try reading the Constitution sometime, CE. I'd love to get your skewed view of that document.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

The only context to add is the ineptness of the Democrats to do anything. You do realize that going back 1100 days means the Democrats had a HUGE majority in the House. There is some context for you. So what was the excuse (context) for that period of time.


Try understanding the Constitution sometime a_ray. It is ironic that the founding document of our government, was written with the context of limiting Federal Government powers is interpreted by you to give unrestrained power to the Federal Governement.


Your excuses for incompetence are just that, excuses.




Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE, would that be "ironic" in the sense of false, or do you not understand the dictionary any more than you understand the Constitution?

Anonymous said...

No a_ray it is an "outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been expected".


I see, once again, you avoid the inconvenient facts of the topic at hand and try to distract onto to some minor point, that you end up being wrong about as well. The hilarity never ends with a_ray.


Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE, you will not find me defending Democrats beyond the simple fact that at least they do not deny scientific fact (evolution, climate change, etc.) and their policies are less likely to exacerbate income inequality.

Yes, they are spineless, but the Republicans are brainless.

Anonymous said...

"...their policies are less likely to exacerbate income inequality."


I'd say they are more likely, more government intrusion means more regulations, which means more costs passed onto the consumer.

The Federal Government is now enlarging the dependency class where people would rather have the check than work.


We will never agree on this topic.




Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE, Unfortunately, gummint intrusion is needed as far too many corporations have shown they are unable to regulate themselves.

Dependency class wanting a gummint check--you mean like Boeing? Lockmart? Blackwater--or whatever they've changed their name to this week?

Or are you talking about folks the gummint allows to be paid very handily by dividends and capital gains while paying at 15% tax?

Fact: Income inequality went up until the New Deal, then down until the 1980s. It rose dramatically in the '80s and early '90s, fell slightly under Clinton and has risen ever since.

Most of the poor people I know want to work. They just regularly get the stuffing knocked out of them, rise again, get knocked down again,...repeat. The best way to maintain their motivation to work is to 1)make the playing field more even, 2)provide avenues for them to develop the skills they need to compete.

And OK, not all Republicans are brainless. Some are merely heartless.

In any case, quite independent of economics, I cannot vote for a party that rejects science. The Republicans have made the decision quite simple.

J Bowers said...

"I'd say they are more likely, more government intrusion means more regulations, which means more costs passed onto the consumer."

How many lost their homes after the 2008 collapse, which the bankers themselves attributed to reckless deregulation, when meeting with the head of the IMF?

Anonymous said...

How many lost their homes, because they over extended themselves, decided to walk away becuase the house's value dropped below the loan commitment, should not have purchased a home with no money down which was an option made available in the late 1990's and the Democrats refusal, REFUSAL to address the situation and Fannie and Freddie that was driving banks to lower the standards to qualify for home purchase.


There is a lot more to this than your your one liners.


btw with the finacial reform acts passed by the dems, how is that housing market coming along?


Sorry to hear that OWS'ers in cleveland tried to blow up a bridge and murder your fellow Americans. Those 99%'ers are sane rational, normal, everyday, terrorists.



Celery Eater


Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

How many unsecured loans were given out, and by whom?

How many people lost their money when the deregulated financial institutions advised them to invest in one thing, while the same advisers were betting against same?

Which champions of deregulation gave the green light to Iceland's economy, then changed the names of their papers to make it look like they'd given the red light?

I am not an American.

dhogaza said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dhogaza said...

"btw with the finacial reform acts passed by the dems, how is that housing market coming along?"

Recovering, actually. Not as quickly as hoped as the adminstration's hands are mostly tied by the Tea Party fucks in the House busy eating celery.

But recovering.

As is the economy, albeit more slowly than it would if the Tea Party shits hadn't blocked any more stimulus spending.

As is the stock market, up roughtly 60% from when Obama took office.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE,
Hmm. Now, let me remember. When housing prices collapsed in 2008, was it a Democrat in the Whitehouse? Why, no. No. I believe it was a Republican. What is more, a Republican had been in power for the past 8 years, most of them with a solid majority in both houses of Congress.

And if their future was entirely in Democrat hands, then why do you suppose Fannie and Freddie were paying Newtie as a lobbyist, er, historian?

Much as we all wish the Bush administration had never happened, CE, it did. And I'd say you would have a really difficult case to make that things are not better after 4 years of Obama than they were after 8 years of Bush.

Obama may lack a spine, but he does at least have a nodding acquaintance with physical reality that the former occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. lacked.

Anonymous said...

Dhogaza,

I only asked how many individuals made poor decisions, I did not blame the consumers.

Ah the old "you're a racist" ccharge. Goodbye you are irrelevant to any further discussions. I am sure Brian will jump in and say something to you about you calling me a racist and using vulgar language, oh wait he has two sets of standards, nevermind.


A_ray,

Hmmm now let me remember who controlleed both Houses of Congress from January 2007 - January 2011. Hmmm it wasn't Republicans.


There is plenty of blame to go around, and Obama's incompetence is only matches by the do nothing Democrats in the Senate.


No things are not better unless you are in the 1%, the IRONY of Dhogaza mentioning how well the stock market is doing well middle-class income is worse under Obama than Bush, houses prices are back to 1986, Employment numbers cannot even keep up with population growth and the laughable "we should have had another stimulus".... lol. Wow OK lets make the national debt $20 trillion, that will improve the economy.




Celery Eater

EliRabett said...

Brain fart alert, Eli clicked on the wrong button and removed a comment by dhogaza. Apologies

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE, it's really fun to watch you froth at the mouth. 2007 to 2011? Gee, CE, the economy was in freefall by September 2008. And the stimulus...Oh yes, that was approved under Bush. And the war in Iraq @ $800 billion we didn't need to spend, why that was Bush too. And the 1.35 trillion dollar giveaway to the wealthy--Geez, Bush again. The fact that the Afghan war is still going on due to our distraction in Iraq...Bush. Oh, and debt over GDP? Gee, it went down from Truman 'til Reagan, up during Reagan and Bush, down under Clinton (but mainly during the 2nd term, way up under Bush II and continued on the same trajectory under Obama, although the slope is starting to decrease.

Gee, CE, looks like Republicans are bad for Bidness.

Anonymous said...

A_ray,
You are the frothing one, above is quite a rant.

"... And the stimulus...Oh yes, that was approved under Bush..."

The stimulus was not approved under Bush.

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Amazing show of ignorance or complete dishonesty a_ray, which is it?


Spend time with liberals and they will call you a racist, use vulgarity, and lie or be ignorant.



Celery Eater

dhogaza said...

It was TARP, not the stimulus package, that was passed by Bush. This, among other things, was an important step towards keeping GM out of bankrupcy.

CE can rant and rave all he wants, but the stimulus package (Obama), and TARP (first round, Bush) kept us out of a real depression. Even the majority of conservative economists agree, something like 90% of economists altogether. CBO agrees.

Who to believe? The experts, or the climate-science-denying celery eater? It's a simple choice.

Keynes rules. Too bad Clinton was the only recent president to listen to Keynes when the economy was rolling - rack up a surplus and pay down debt.

The US economy is recovering. The rise in the stock market doesn't just affect the 1%, most of the middle class is invested in the stock market through 401Ks, IRAs, or state pension plans that depend on stocks and bonds to cover payouts. The 60% rise under Obama benefits tens of millions.

"houses prices are back to 1986" - try 2002. That's what happens when lenders are unfettered by regulations and give money away to people who under normal circumstances would't qualify for a loan. You get a bubble as demand for housing for sale outstrips supply.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE, way to ignore the substance of my post, but then, when you got nothing...

Dhogaza is correct--it was TARP, not the stimulus. However, do you really think Bush wouldn't have tried to get a stimulus--in his case consisting of more tax breaks for the wealthy?

Again, the point--under Democrats, the economy grows. Under Rethuglicans, it shrivels--kinda like your brain, really.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

I ignoreed the rant of your post and if you cannot get a simple fact about the stimulus correct, well your personal opinions on economic topics become rather weak.

How about another "mistake" on your part.

". Oh, and debt over GDP? Gee, it went down from Truman 'til Reagan, up during Reagan and Bush, down under Clinton (but mainly during the 2nd term, way up under Bush II and continued on the same trajectory under Obama, although the slope is starting to decrease."


LMAO your ignorance is glaring, bright, and stunning in its brilliance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png

"CNN's Jack Cafferty and CBS's Mark Knoller have noted that the US national debt in nominal dollars has increased more rapidly under President Obama than under any other U.S. president, and that it had increased by $4 trillion since the beginning of his term of office.[26]["


Obama has Federal Debt to over 100% of GDP, and the projections for that continue.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html


You really do not know what you are talking about.



Celery Eater

Grants for Women said...

These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I'm happy to find many good point here in the post. Writing is simply great! Thank you for the post.

Henry Moore said...

Only just found this blog, thanks. Altho the science is fascinating and important I think we are really seeing the end (I hope) of a sort of religious or belief system. The deniers will scream and shout to the very end and for myself this social science aspect is as interesting as the climate part. Thanks again.