|
Want More New Jobs?; Enforce EPA Regulations!
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 15 2011, 01:34 AM (672 Views)
|
|
Brewster
|
Nov 15 2011, 04:24 AM
Post #11
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 32,223
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #105
- Joined:
- Jul 16, 2008
|
- Pat
- Nov 15 2011, 04:05 AM
I don't doubt that down the line there will be new jobs created from green industry. Right now is not the time to further disrupt industry. Once the rest of the world catches up, we can take another look at it. Yes, why would you want to disrupt something that's running so well? Just a few hundred billion$ going overseas that could be used to fix things at home, and 9% unemployment numbers - let's just carry on, Business as Usual.
After all, the Kochs and their Oil Industry friends are promising millions of new jobs. Pay no attenton to the fact that they're actually cutting staff monthly as they turn the country into a bankrupt sewer. Koch "Job Creators" lay off 2000 while making $98 Billion
I mean it's not like the storms, drought, wildfires, floods, etc are actually costing real money, a mere $90 Billion this year, with no reason to think it will slow down.

(BTW, this graph is from August, so it's only showing half of the 2011 data.)
The only question left is, "What will it take before the US Right realizes it's being scammed by the 1%?"
Edited by Brewster, Nov 15 2011, 04:26 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Brewster
|
Nov 15 2011, 04:57 AM
Post #12
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 32,223
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #105
- Joined:
- Jul 16, 2008
|
Incidentally, I just discovered a very interesting fact - over the last couple of years, the European Union has become the second largest net importer of oil, right behind the US.
Over $250 Billion a year!
And guess which country imports the most per capita? No prizes if you guessed Greece, at about $20 Billion a rear. Plus another few Billion$ for Coal
The US Right continues to pretend that the Greek financial disaster is somehow related to Socialism. But that's a red herring. Their trade deficit this year will be about $24 Billion. Put in wind and solar power, and their financial picture would look a lot rosier. In fact, they'd probably be in the black. But when money dried up, guess what was the first investment to be cut by their conservative-leaning government? Yup, Renewable energy.
Stupidity reigns.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Nov 15 2011, 05:13 AM
Post #13
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
You don't live in a community /brew with high unemployment and a government that spends $trillions more than it takes in. And Canada does not have nearly the investment in solar or wind power that we do. It must be nice living where pollution is an accepted way of life, that tar sands are a big enough concern that the Prime Minister now wants to build a pipeline to BC so it can be sold to China. Good for you guys.
The socialist southern European countries violated the terms of the union agreement because socialists and deadbeats knew they would get bailed out. That same mentality exists here. So yes, we have a similar situation.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Nov 15 2011, 10:32 AM
Post #14
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
"Stupidity reigns" in liberal emotionalism.
And this one is a gem. Demonize those who disagree by misrepresenting what they say. Hunt for opinions that support your opinion. Display STATISTICS! Exaggerate with emotional language!! OMG the problem's so overwhelming!!!
But no one is arguing for pollution. Everyone knows it's a problem.
It's just another straw man, the stuff of liberal emotionalism.
Why? To make the emotional leap that can't be argued rationally, that government is the solution.
Perhaps the final solution.
Liberal fascism.
The state in and by itself is the ethical whole, the actualisation of freedom; and it is an absolute end of reason that freedom should be actual. The state is mind on earth and consciously realising itself there. In nature, on the other hand, mind actualises itself only as its own other, as mind asleep. Only when it is present in consciousness, when it knows itself as a really existent object, is it the state. In considering freedom, the starting-point must be not individuality, the single self-consciousness, but only the essence of self-consciousness; for whether man knows it or not, this essence is externally realised as a self-subsistent power in which single individuals are only moments. The march of God in the world, that is what the state is. ~G.W.F. Hegel
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Nov 15 2011, 12:43 PM
Post #15
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
- Pat
- Nov 15 2011, 05:13 AM
The socialist southern European countries violated the terms of the union agreement because socialists and deadbeats knew they would get bailed out. That same mentality exists here. So yes, we have a similar situation. What about the socialist countries of Scandinavia? You don't hear about them going broke. And, even GB and Germany are a lot more socialist than the US. It's not a case of a problem created by socialist policies. It's a case of irresponsible entitlement spending and unwillingness to pay for it (ie; avoiding taxes). We have that here, but it has nothing to do with socialism. That's just a boogeyman the 1% like to circulate to scare people into protecting their interests.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Nov 15 2011, 07:32 PM
Post #16
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- tomdrobin
- Nov 15 2011, 12:43 PM
- Pat
- Nov 15 2011, 05:13 AM
The socialist southern European countries violated the terms of the union agreement because socialists and deadbeats knew they would get bailed out. That same mentality exists here. So yes, we have a similar situation.
What about the socialist countries of Scandinavia? You don't hear about them going broke. And, even GB and Germany are a lot more socialist than the US. It's not a case of a problem created by socialist policies. It's a case of irresponsible entitlement spending and unwillingness to pay for it (ie; avoiding taxes). We have that here, but it has nothing to do with socialism. That's just a boogeyman the 1% like to circulate to scare people into protecting their interests. Tom, you might want to reassess the socialism of Scandanavia.
Sweden's economy booms with cautious turn to the right- Quote:
-
...One of contenders for the most highly taxed country in the Western world has cut taxes significantly since 2006. Tight fiscal policy has pushed the public sector's share of GDP back down toward 50%. The economy is growing, the budget is balanced, unemployment is declining.
The governing center-right coalition was re-elected last year; the once dominant Social Democrats suffered their worst defeat since before World War I.
...Between 1980 and 1992, Sweden lost ground relative to other rich countries, according to a McKinsey study. Since 2009, however, Sweden has one of the faster-growing economies in Western Europe. The growth has been led by the private sector, where jobs are multiplying at what Radio Sweden calls "a record pace."
Sweden's right turn started back in the early 1990s, but the turn is being institutionalized under the prime ministership of Fredrik Reinfeldt. Reinfeldt is a cautious conservative in the manner of Britain's David Cameron. His party is formally known as the Moderates, and he goes to great pains to reassure Swedes that the party will live up to its billing.
American conservatives might find Reinfeldt disappointingly unconfrontational. Yet in five years in office, he has repealed Sweden's wealth taxes and inheritance taxes. He has reduced the labor taxes that pushed almost all home repairs into the black market. He has championed a simple powerful idea: Work should pay better than benefits. He is prevailing.
As he prevails, he changes the country's political culture.
Swedish civil servants used to see the Social Democrats as the natural party of government. Over five years of conservative governance -- and with at least three more to come -- the civil servants are adjusting to two-party competition. The people who run the Swedish state day-to-day are learning that promotion goes to those with the best ideas for expanding opportunity and accelerating growth.
I think that's generally true in Europe: The decline of social democracy in Europe, Europe's social failure.
The problem is we're headed where Sweden was with liberals leading the charge.
I agree, through, while social democracy is a euphemism for socialism, socialism is probably the wrong word, rather, statism is more appropriate and gets us back on topic.
“A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.” ~Ayn Rand, cited in Are You a Socialist or Statist?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Nov 16 2011, 02:16 AM
Post #17
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
It's difficult comparing the energy needs of a small European country with a continent wide country such as America. Some countries can utilize offshore wind powered generators for much of their power and can do so because of logistics, topography, and population location. We can't do so. We need to harvest the vast coal, oil, and natural gas and utilize a series of refineries and power generation plants strategically located near the resource and population-industrial centers. Not every country is equal along these lines.
And i don't believe emotionalism and unrealistic environmental expectations lead to sound and practical solutions. A small coal fired utility may not be able to move towards cleaner coal as quickly as a large producer with millions of customers. To establish environmental rules that radically affect the profit potential and viability of companies is insane. There are companies that will close up shop if pushed to the limit because the stockholders and investors are not going to lose money due to unrealistic expectations of bureaucrats and tree huggers.
Our naive president ran on a string of promises wherein many were not carefully thought out ahead of time. And then he declared war on entire industries as if he were Alexander the Great. And he was beaten back and will continue to be beaten back by reasonable people.
When I visit Mexico City or an industrial city in mainland China, it can take a week to quit coughing and spitting up the soot. And my eyes take several days to return to normal. Believe me when I say, if the tree huggers want to protest air, water, and toxic conditions, they are picking on the wrong country. And those who would vote for a continuation of the amateurism we have in Obama and his policy makers, then be prepared for four more years of obstruction at the hands of sensible people. We're a hardy people and we have outlasted other attacks against our way of life.
Edited by Pat, Nov 16 2011, 02:19 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Nov 17 2011, 10:10 AM
Post #18
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
Government only a statist can love and trust. Can you say scientism? This article calls it “press release science”.
EPA using ‘press release science’ to justify regulations, congressmen say- Quote:
-
The Environmental Protection Agency has used bogus “press release science” to defend analyses of how Clean Air Act regulations affect the public’s health while downplaying their economic costs, two congressmen declared Tuesday.
In an unusually lengthy 11-page letter, Maryland Republican Rep. Andy Harris and Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun presented White House regulatory administrator Cass Sunstein with over half a dozen examples of administration officials using scientific figures that they said “test credibility.”
Sunstein heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a division of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Harris and Broun, members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology – and both chairmen of subcommittees — asked Sunstein to respond to their concerns that the agency is using junk science to support regulations.
“In many cases, these required cost-benefit analyses appear designed to provide political cover for a more stringent regulatory agenda rather than objectively inform policy decisions,” the congressmen wrote.
The letter cites EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s claim before the House energy committee in September that “if we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer” as “baseless and unsupported by science.”
Jackson’s statement implied that reducing fine particulate matter — pollution found in smoke and haze, usually from forest fires, power plants and automobiles — would prevent approximately 600,000 deaths per year, about 20 percent of all U.S. deaths. The letter noted the EPA’s own data showing that fine particulate matter levels had actually fallen nearly 30 percent in the last 20 years.
Harris and Broun also blasted EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy’s September 15 statement before the science committee that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would prevent “up to 34,000 premature deaths a year.”
“Ms. McCarthy could not explain the cause of these premature deaths, did not account for any uncertainty in this and other statements, and has subsequently failed to provide the underlying data behind such claims,” the congressmen wrote.
The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1970 and updated in 1990, gives the agency permission to regulate U.S. air pollution, but most regulations must be backed up by scientific analyses known as Regulatory Impact Analyses. These analyses, Harris and Broun charge, are hardly scientific at all.
The pair claim the agency used a counting trick to claim that fine particulate matter caused more than 300,000 deaths in 2005, up from 80,000 before the calculating measure was used.
Harris and Broun also accused the EPA of understating costs of regulatory compliance, ignoring health benefits, failing to analyze and communicate uncertainties in their data, and lacking transparency.
They have requested a written response from Sunstein by December 6.
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Nov 17 2011, 12:21 PM
Post #19
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
- Chris
- Nov 15 2011, 07:32 PM
Tom, you might want to reassess the socialism of Scandanavia. Well it is important to remember that right in countries like Sweden doesn't equate to right wing here in the US. The article you post claims the move to the right started in 1990. Here is an article on their taxes and entitlements.
- Quote:
-
Where tax goes up to 60 per cent, and everybody's happy paying it
Political parties have been vying to offer the biggest tax cuts as the credit crunch tightens its grip on Britain. In their view, low taxes are now the best way to get the economy going and to help out families.
Cutting or keeping taxes low has always proved popular with the electorate: in 1992 the Conservatives' election campaign slogan 'Labour's tax bombshell' made the most of the then shadow Chancellor John Smith's intention to increase the higher rate of tax from 40 to 50 per cent. Labour lost.
But is this the best way to proceed in the long term, and would UK taxpayers get better value for money if they paid more, rather than less?
One way to examine the issue is to compare state help provided by the British government to one which traditionally charges much higher taxes: Sweden. Swedes support the second-highest tax burden in the world - after Denmark's - with an average of 48.2 per cent of GDP going to taxes. Yet Sweden, along with equally high-taxing Denmark and Norway, tops almost every international barometer of successful societies.
Swedes' personal income tax can be as little as 29 per cent of their pay, but most people (anyone earning over £32,000) will pay between 49 and 60 per cent through a combination of local government and state income tax. By comparison, the UK's tax burden is 36.6 per cent of GDP, the basic rate of tax is 20 per cent and the higher rate 40 per cent, plus National Insurance at 11 per cent for those earning between £105 and £770 a week, and 1 per cent for anything earned above this limit.
But for most Swedes paying high taxes is a benefit, not a problem. 'I am very happy to pay high taxes because I know I am getting value for the money later on,' says Valentina Valestany, a 39-year-old legal adviser. She is especially pleased with the school her daughters Westa, 15, and Anastasia, 13, attend. 'Lunches are free, it was no problem getting in. My daughters receive a very good education and they have great teachers.'
Nicholas Aylott, a 38-year-old British lecturer, is working as a political scientist at Stockholm's Södertörn University College.
'If you start talking to someone in Britain, you can be fairly sure that they will end up saying that taxes are too high. In Sweden, you can't do the same,' he says. 'Most people trust the state to manage taxes well. There's a broad, deep faith that the money going into the welfare state will be employed usefully.'
But he also points out that self-interest is at play: 'The median voter is a woman who works for the public sector, and around two-thirds of the electorate draw most of their income from the state, either because they work in the public sector or draw benefits from it.'
Overall though, he says, 'Swedes are very attached to the idea of the state as the People's Home. Everyone in society is under the same roof, everyone will be protected. Sweden is now a more diverse society, but this idea still persists.'
And Swedes are well provided for. Year after year Save the Children puts it at the top its league of countries where it is best to be a mother; the country is sixth on the UN Development Programme's human development index (the UK is 16th); and Unicef ranks it second in its table of child wellbeing in rich countries. Maybe Sweden proves that it's worth paying high taxes.
Childcare
Childcare is important to Aylott and his wife Elena as they have a young son, and in Sweden, they have found it affordable, available and generally of good quality.
'The kindergarten that our son Alex attends costs just 1,200 kronor (£97) a month. I have relatives in London who pay 10 times that,' he says. 'It was no problem finding Alex a place as there are plenty of local kindergartens where we live. In Sweden we are able to raise a young child and hold two demanding jobs at the same time. In Britain, it wouldn't be as easy.'
Aylott and his family are enjoying one of the many benefits Sweden offers its residents. Aside from universal kindergarten coverage, Swedes enjoy free schools - public and private - free health and dental care for under-18s, or generous personal benefits such as a child allowance of £1,080 a year per child.
But the most eye-catching benefit is probably parental leave. Parents enjoy a joint parental leave lasting 480 days. For 390 days they receive 80 per cent of their income, capped at 440,000 kronor a year (£35,800), while for the remaining 90 days they receive 180 kronor (£14.60) a day. In theory the leave is split fifty-fifty, but it is up to the couple to decide how they want to organise it. One partner can give as many days as he or she wants to the other so long as each parent takes up to 60 days at the minimum. A single parent is entitled to the full 480-day period.
For some couples, this means the father can become the child's prime carer during the first years. 'I'm taking 15 months off while my wife, Anne, will take five months,' says Gustav Levander, 31, a teacher and musician. 'Some of the leave we're taking together at the same time, while for other periods either Anne or I will be at home while the other is at work. It's unbelievably good that I have the opportunity to stay at home for a long time. My son, Olle, will get the chance to know me well in his early years.'
In the UK, fathers can only take up to two weeks of statutory paternity leave, unless their employers offer them a more generous period.
Swedish parents can also stretch the leave by taking it part-time. 'You can take off an hour or two a day for certain periods, if you want. So if you want to leave work earlier to pick up your child from kindergarten, you will be paid by the state for the missing hours,' says Niklas Löfgren, an analyst at Sweden's Social Insurance Agency.
Compare this with the childcare-juggling that Sandra Haurant, who lives in Bedfordshire and works two days a week as a website editor in London, has to do. She has two small children: Ines, eighteen months, and Tom, three-and-a-half, and pays £120 a week for them to spend a day-and-a-half a week in a private day nursery. The rest of the time she's working, her mother looks after the children. 'The cost of childcare is unbelievably expensive,' she says. 'I'm only paying for a day and a half a week, but we're still paying around £480 a month.'
The UK government offers all three- and four-year-olds 12-and-a-half hours of free early years education a week for 38 weeks a year, with a registered school, nursery or playgroup provider. But the hours can only be taken in two-and-a- half hour sessions (either for a morning or an afternoon), meaning you can't actually get a full day of free childcare.
If you are employed and fall pregnant, you are entitled to statutory maternity leave of one year, and may be entitled to receive statutory maternity pay for up to 39 weeks regardless of how long you've been with your employer - but fathers can only take up to the two weeks statutory leave.
All parents are entitled to claim child benefit for children under 16. At the moment, you can claim £18.80 a week for the eldest or only child, and £12.55 a week for any additional children.
Pensions and care for the elderly
Sweden has a progressive state pension system: the more you earn, the higher your final pension will be. The retirement age is also flexible: you can start drawing on it from the age of 61, with no fixed upper limit, but the longer you wait to draw your pension, the higher it will be.
Very broadly, 'If you earn the average salary of 260,000 kronor (£21,200) a year, you will receive about 55 per cent of your salary as pension,' says Arne Paulsson, a pensions expert at Sweden's Social Insurance Agency. 'About 90 per cent of Swedes have occupational pensions on top of that, which amounts to 15 per cent of their salary. So in total, people get about 70 per cent of their income when they retire.'
There is also a guaranteed minimum pension for those who have not worked enough to qualify for the state pension. Depending on personal circumstances, it can be at most 6,381 kronor (£514) a month for a married person and 7,153 kronor (£576) a month for a single person. You can start drawing on it from the age of 65.
In contrast, the basic state pension in the UK is paid to men at 65 and women at 60 - though for women the qualifying age will gradually increase to 65 by 2020 - and is worth £90.70 a week, though this can vary depending on individual circumstances. The Pension Credit tops up the basic state pension by guaranteeing a minimum amount for those who are on a low income. It guarantees everyone aged 60 and over an income of at least £124.05 a week for someone who is single and £189.35 a week for someone with a partner.
Unemployment
In case of unemployment, most individuals receive 80 per cent of their previous salary for the first 200 days of inactivity - up to 680 kronor (£53) a day - dropping to 70 per cent for the next 100 days.
To qualify, individuals must have been in paid work for a year before becoming unemployed. They must also be members of one of the country's 33 unemployment insurance funds, which most working Swedes are. These are partly funded by taxpayers' money and partly by members' fees, which vary according to professions. Teachers, for instance, must pay in 166 kronor (£13.40) a month, while construction workers can pay 311 (£25), less if they belong to unions. 'The fee is relative to the risk of unemployment in your sector. If there's a higher risk of it, you pay more,' says Eija Loijas, an adviser at the Swedish Federation of Unemployment Insurance Funds.
If unemployed Swedes were not prior members of an unemployment insurance fund, they receive the basic unemployment benefit of 320 kronor (£25) a day for 300 days if they worked full-time, dropping to 160 kronor (£13) if they worked part-time. During that time, unemployed Swedes must show that they are actively looking for work. If they refuse the first job offer, they lose 25 per cent of their benefits for 40 days. If they turn down three job offers, their benefits are suspended. If Swedes have not found a job after 300 days, they will be enrolled into a job training programme until they find one, receiving 65 per cent of their previous income during that time.
Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance, the main benefit for people in the UK who are eligible and out of work, pays £47.95 a week for people aged 16 to 24 and £60.50 a week for those aged 25 or over.
To qualify you must be able to work at least 40 hours a week, be looking for work, have paid enough National Insurance on your income, have savings less than a certain amount and be over 18 years old and under state pension age.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/16/sweden-tax-burden-welfare
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Nov 17 2011, 09:43 PM
Post #20
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
"Well it is important to remember that right in countries like Sweden doesn't equate to right wing here in the US. The article you post claims the move to the right started in 1990."
Of course, they're still far to the left of us, paying as much as 60% in taxes. Not sure I would hold that up as a goal for us. Besides, however relative the more right is, it still shows them aboandoning socialism because it failed them. DO we need to repeat their mistakes?
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|