GOP Reality Show

[khagler]

Taxes aren't the only cost government imposes. There's also the cost of adhering to various regulations, and the cost of permit fees and campaign contributions, or bribes (depending on how formalized corruption is in the country) affecting prices. Historically, the US was less economically unfree than most countries, but in the past ten years or so it's been getting worse, while other countries have been improving. It wasn't that long ago that Canada and Ireland were way down in the Index of Economic Freedom, but now they're both ahead of the US. Err, above the US in the ranking, I mean. I realize that not everyone here considers economic freedom a good thing. :-)

[CattyNebulart]

Regulations really need to be done from a cost benefit analysis, many of the US regulations are overly complex, and don't have a good payoff.

The new banking regulations are a good example, it used to be that investment and saving banks had to be separate, the removal of those rules is supposed to be one of the things that led to the crisis. So what did they do, did they re-institute the simple and easy to follow rules? No they created a morass of regulations and exceptions that are confusing even to top lawyers, and that are far less effective than the old simple rule.

This afflicts all US regulations from food safety, pollution, banking, taxes, and everything else. That is the real problem, you could replace 99% of the volume rules with a simplified version and the regulations would be easier to comply with, easier to enforce, and have a better payoff in terms of increased safety (or other regulatory benefit such as fair markets, no conflict of interest etc. But most regulations are about safety of some kind). It will never happen because all the special interest will whine about their one exception, and each exception is backed by a lot of money in campaign contributions.

I remember sitting with a lawyer and tax professional trying to figure out if I could use some of my funds for something, and there was the basic rule, and the exceptions to it. However the exceptions had exceptions and the exceptions to the exceptions had exceptions and so forth 8 levels deep. Beyond that there was this other rule elsewhere in the tax-code that affected some of the exceptions to my exceptions, and this other rule that nullified some of the exceptions under some conditions. How are people supposed to work with all these rules, or even comply with them? If I would have had to pay the lawyer for it it would have cost a small fortune, easily dwarfing the amount of money in question, and there was no hope at all that I could have figured it out without help, I wouldn't even have known to consult the other rules in a completely different part of the book. Attempting to comply with the law should not be a risk factor, and yet these days it is.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Bob Schroeck]

Attempting to comply with the law should not be a risk factor, and yet these days it is.

"Any system of 'justice' in which ignorance of the law is no exception, but in which there are too many laws for any one person to know and remember, is by definition unjust."
-- "McCandlish's Law of Unjust Bureaucracy", Stantonn McCandlish, EFF online activist; 1993.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ECSNorway]

Regulations really need to be done from a cost benefit analysis, many of the US regulations are overly complex, and don't have a good payoff.

A lot of folk here think that green energy would be a good thing.
The only technology we currently have that will produce green energy in economical quantities is nuclear fission.
How many nuclear fission reactors have been built in the last 20 years?
Not a whole lot.
Let's see what Al Gore, the Anointed One of Green Energy Policy, has to say:

Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United
States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were
prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a
one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a
year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about
half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively
reliable.

Not a very optimistic outlook, hm? The truth is that the regulatory burden on reactor construction is so high that companies wishing to build new reactors need to commit nearly twice the actual construction costs (to cover legal fees, licensing fees, etc), up to five years before beginning construction, depending on state. It's nearly impossible to actually get it built.
Nuclear power currently covers almost 20% of the US' electricity needs. 'Clean coal' is a joke (here's a hint: the waste ash that is still left over after even 'clean coal' is burnt in a power plant? More radioactive than the maximum release at Three Mile Island.) Cutting oil out of the electricity loop will free it to decrease its price in other applications (plastics, medicine, gasoline...)
If we truly want to 'go green', save money, and become energy independant, we need to take a long hard look at the regulatory environment for nuclear power plants, and restructure it so that it MAKES SENSE.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Black Aeronaut]

Unfortunately, a lot of environmentalists take an extremist view of the whole matter.  They do not think of nuclear fission as 'green' energy and if you ask them why, they'll point their fingers accusingly at TMI, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima as well.  And they'll also point their fingers at all the leftover spent fuel... which we can't do anything with because they're quick to shut down any disposal site.  The classic example of this being the proposed disposal site in Needles, Nevada.
If any headway is to be made, then we must ensure that the environmental extremists aren't bogging down the works.  Their opinion matters, but should be taken with a grain of salt.
As an aside... Funny thing about life in Yokosuka, Japan... Most of the people that came to protest about the presence of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier did not live in or anywhere near Yokosuka.  Just goes to show you, there's NIMBY and then there's... *shrugs* bullshit.

[ECSNorway]

NIMBY has killed more projects than you'd think...

For example, one company wanted to build a massive offshore wind farm near Nantucket Sound.

Its biggest enemy?

Ted Kennedy. Who lived there at the time.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[CattyNebulart]

Agreed we need more nuclear power. The reason why it's so safe is that it can afford to be. If you put that kind of safety on a coal plant coal based electricity would cost thousands of times what it does today. So coal plants are free to pollute the area, it also doesn't help that people are irrationally afraid of radiation. Yes it can be dangerous, but you should compare it to other risk factors like particulates.

Also there is a lot we could do with the spent fuel that we don't do. For-instance, we could re-use used fuel like France does, but that creates a lot of weapons grade material which is a concern. But even if buried, the burial site doesn't need to last for hundreds of years, after a mere 300 or so the risk is down to the level as if we had never dug it up in the first place. The thousands of years is purely due to the excessive safety surrounding nuclear power. Imagine if refineries had to be that safe. How many refineries released toxic sludge into the ocean and land after the tsunami? How many people where killed in refinery fires? A lot more than the few that got the equivalent of sunburn from the nuclear plant.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[ECSNorway]

The Navy has reprocessed spent nuclear fuel for decades. It's been an integral part of their plans for maintaining their nuclear-powered vessels since the beginning. It only came to a stop because Obama outlawed the practice because it 'encourages proliferation'.

Reprocessing of commercial, civilian reactor fuel was stopped under Ford and Carter, restarted under Reagan, and stopped again under Obama.

All used nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and re-used.

Doing so reduces the half-life of the remaining byproducts massively. What can't be reused as nuclear fuel is 99.9% free of radiation within 40 years, rather than the 10k+ of actual uranium or plutonium-laden spent fuel rods.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Rev Dark]

Fact checking ECS.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -materials

Doing so reduces the half-life of the remaining byproducts massively.
What can't be reused as nuclear fuel is 99.9% free of radiation within
40 years, rather than the 10k+ of actual uranium or plutonium-laden
spent fuel rods.

If you are going to quote mine - take the whole quote.

If reprocessing is undertaken only to reduce the radioactivity level of
spent fuel it should be taken into account that spent nuclear fuel
becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years its radioactivity
drops by 99.9%,[36] though it still takes over a thousand years for the level of radioactivity to approach that of natural uranium.[37] However the level of transuranic elements, including plutonium-239, remains high for over 100,000 years, so if not reused as nuclear fuel, then those elements need secure disposal because of nuclear proliferation reasons as well as radiation hazard.

And of course the big lie

It only came to a stop because Obama outlawed the practice because it 'encourages proliferation'.

No.  He moved away from commercial reprocessing and put it back into scientific research on better and more effective reprocessing techniques - because the current ones produce more waste per volume; with all the same storage and half life issues.

[ordnance11]

Meet the billionaires who want to go back to the 1890's
Teddy Roosevelt would weep!
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

..... And this is why Obama is going to utterly destroy Mitt Romney.

[Morganite]

If rich people want to make contributions to the candidate whose policies will benefit non-rich me, I have no objections.

Besides, it's not like Obama doesn't have his share of rich donors.

-Morgan.

[Rod.H]

The only rich guy I like in that list is Jim Davis, the New Balance guy, if only due to the fact that he want's a lock-in on a defence contract to be the only source of sneakers and apparently only that. Well the New Balance trainers I've bought previously ain't too bad and I swear I've seen stuff of soldiers on PT etc wearing NB footgear.

All the others......first against the wall come the revolution?!?

[ordnance11]

Okay, someone got the great idea for Romney to go abroad to show the world that he is comfortable on the world stage. So how did he do?
1. Insult the British about their handling of the Olympics.
2. Blurt out that he met with the head of MI6..when that was supposed to be a secret.
3. Antagonize the Palestinians with his "culture" remark.
4. He got an endorsement from Lech Walesa...but he did not get one from Solidarity.
5. One of his aides got nasty with the press..not Romney's fault there.
6. Last but not least, holding fundraisers in England and Israel. The English fundraiser happens have Barclay's executives attending. The bank which admitted to manipulating the LIBOR rates. It's all perfectly legal to raise cash from Americans abroad, but this is the first time I'ved ever heard of a presidential candidate hosting a fundraiser abroad. It gives me the impression of Governor Romney courting the world financial system.
So as a trip, I would not make it a successful one. His surrogates had said that his performance abroad won't matter, that foreign policy won't decide the election. True enough. Then Mitt's trip abroad is a waste of money then. Because he can put his foot in his mouth just as easily from the U.S. as well as abroad.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Morganite]

1. Insult the British about their handling of the Olympics.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it an insult based on what I've heard. >.>

Someone I heard on the radio (can't remember what show) suggested that this is kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing for Romney. If he talked like everything was fine, and then there was a problem, they'd be on him for that. If he had concerns and expressed them, then you get what's happening now.

And while I'm not clear on the details, people seem to think there really are reasons to be concerned.

3. Antagonize the Palestinians with his "culture" remark.

The Israeli's apparently liked it though.

-Morgan.

[khagler]

If you don't like something Romney said, wait a few days and he'll say the opposite. His only distinguishing characteristic is his ability to take every side of every issue to a degree that makes other politicians look steadfast and principled.

[ordnance11]

Tom Davis, a former congressman from Virginia,  spoke these words at an interview with NPR:

We have members from all stripes in the party, but we recognize, A,
politics is a game of addition, not subtraction; and B, you got to ask
yourself, would you rather be a church welcoming converts or a church
that's chasing out heretics?

He, by the way, is a moderate Republican.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Bob Schroeck]

Which probably means he's going to get marginalized as quickly as the party can manage it.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ordnance11]

Which probably means he's going to get marginalized as quickly as the party can manage it.

He's not holding office...so that's already done.
The Republicans finally decided on a Latino outreach...by parading a host of GOP politicians who happens to be Latino. And no talk of amending the anti-immigration laws from Arizona to Georgia. It was amusing to me to see these folks ttry to tapdance..errr...diplomatically! on that issue. I mean who are they trying to kid.
I've been hearing snippets of the convention speeaches on the radio. The GOP, IMO, is living up to the moniker "The Party of No". And seeing the rules committee decide to shut down the Ron Paul delegates, add "The Party of Mean" to that description also.  

  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

I caught a few clips and blurbs here and there. Just too disgusted to watch, really. One thing I did catch that got my attention was one person's heartfelt tale about how his father tended bar for years and years so that his son could "stand behind a podium" instead.

Uhm, yeah. These guys are definitely out of touch.

Extravagant wealth isn't my aim here. It's a nice thought and all, but I don't want it. I want to be able to fly my own damn plane, thank you very much. And do you honestly think you know what I want for my children? I want them to have an education that's unrivaled throughout the world, so that they can do whatever the hell they want with their lives.

You can start by bankrolling NASA again and making the dream come back to life. If that doesn't jump-start our nation's high-tech industry, I don't know what will. Spamming the solar system with probes will employ hundreds of thousands - I know because my dad did QA work on PCB designs for the Juno probe. And once that's under way we can start making plans for bigger and better things, like the manned exploration of just about every corner of our system. (You Republicans want rampant imperialism? What better method than sticking an American flag on every frackin' rock out there?)

Once the American public at-large are shooting for those big jobs from NASA, commercial space agencies, and all their myriad vendor companies, then maybe we can get down to discussing fair deals for would-be immigrants. Sure, go ahead and build the wall as high as you like. Good fences make good neighbors, after all. But just make sure the doors are open for New Americans, so that other 'bartenders' out there can have their kids 'stand behind podiums'.

[Morganite]

And no talk of amending the anti-immigration laws from Arizona to Georgia.

I've heard legal immigrants like those laws...

I've been hearing snippets of the convention speeaches on the radio. The GOP, IMO, is living up to the moniker "The Party of No".

And what exactly does that even mean? I bet nearly anything you could call a "no" (whichever party is saying it) is a "yes" phrased differently, and vice versa. It's all about where you are on what issues and what approach you find more appealing.

(Though we've got one local guy here who has probably accomplished more "no" than any party could claim... Never been able to figure that one out.)

And seeing the rules committee decide to shut down the Ron Paul delegates, add "The Party of Mean" to that description also.

As for this, can you try to look at it from the other end for the moment?

I happen to live in Iowa, where 22/28 delegates went for Paul. I've looked at the result maps, and I can find a line of argument for giving Paul about half of the delegates. (14-15) I can find one for him getting slightly less than that. (12-13). The only one I've come up with that's even close to giving 22 is "Consider every vote that's not for Romney is a vote for Paul".

Is is that horrible that people would be upset that their chosen representatives aren't actually representing them, and might want something done about that?

-Morgan.

[ordnance11]

And no talk of amending the anti-immigration laws from Arizona to Georgia.

I've heard legal immigrants like those laws...

I'm a legal immigrant and I'm dammed well horrified by them. These laws are going to create a permanent underclass. Romney claimed in his speech was that we are a nation of immigrants. The immigrants of his generation got theirs. Every one else coming afterwards ain't gonna get it.

I've been hearing snippets of the convention speeaches on
the radio. The GOP, IMO, is living up to the moniker "The Party of No".

And what exactly does that even mean? I bet nearly anything you could
call a "no" (whichever party is saying it) is a "yes" phrased
differently, and vice versa. It's all about where you are on what issues
and what approach you find more appealing.

Simple..No to everything Obama proposes..even if it was a conservative idea in the first place. Cantor and Boehner put that play into effect from 2010 onward.

As for this, can you try to look at it from the other end for the moment?

I happen to live in Iowa, where 22/28 delegates went for Paul. I've
looked at the result maps, and I can find a line of argument for giving
Paul about half of the delegates. (14-15) I can find one for him getting
slightly less than that. (12-13). The only one I've come up with that's
even close to giving 22 is "Consider every vote that's not for Romney
is a vote for Paul".

Is is that horrible that people would be upset that their chosen
representatives aren't actually representing them, and might want
something done about that?

And the decision by the rules committee to give all the delegates  to Romney is fair? It's the Romney team's fault for not following the arcana involved in primaries and caucuses. Ron Paul has about what?..121 delegates to the convention..deciding to squash these guys voice is definitely undemocratic. What was the harm in giving them their 5 minutes in the spotlight?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

About 50 days before the election  and the Romney campaign is getting antsy.
1. President Obama came into the RNC convention with a lead in the polls and came out of the DNC convention still in the lead..particularly in the battleground states. the way the electoral map is shaping up, he has the easier path to victory.
2. His campaign seems to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Obama. Witness the ill thought of criticism during the current crisis following that loony release of that anti-Islam film.
3. Finger pointing among his campaign staff that just went public. That sort of thing normally happens after you lose an election.
4. And then there is the fundraiser remarks:
 
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president
no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who
are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who
believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who
believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to
you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give
it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what,"
Romney said.
Romney added: "My job is is not to worry about those
people. I'll never convince them they should take personal
responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince
the 5-10 percent of people who are independents, that are thoughtful,
that look at voting one way or the other depending upon, in some cases,
emotion, whether they like the guy or not."
He just included the everyone drawing Social Security in those statements as well. as well as those veterans benefits.

Open mouth insert foot...that seems to be the on-going Romney theme.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

Looking from the outside, it appears to me that no matter what Ronmey's other skills may be, he doesn't have the skills to be President of the United States.

But I thought the same about Obama four years ago...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

Looking from the outside, it appears to me that no matter what Ronmey's other skills may be, he doesn't have the skills to be President of the United States.
But I thought the same about Obama four years ago...

Rob, no one is every ready to be President...that started with George Washington onward. It's how you rapidly adapt to the job for the good of the people and country that separates a Franklin Pierce from a Abraham Lincoln.
I 've read the the speech then Senator Obama said that started the "guns and religion" thing. His thrust is that despite cynicism about goverment, he can reach out to people across the other side of the aisle for the betterment of all. "E Pluribus unum"
Romney's thrust is a repeatt of Bush II. Govern the 51% of the country. All others can go hang. Of course, I belive Obama may have no ecourse, but to adopt the same policy because the Repuiblicans will probably refuse to compromise with the President, if he wins a second term. 
 
  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell