How 'bout our choices for President?
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
I would have notified the Corps of Engineers if I held prior water rights that Johnson appropriated without permit or payment. That's the way it works in dry areas of the western US.
"The water is cleaner" is another one of the PLF creations you seem to be fond of. Is it cleaner after his cattle crap in it?
The Colorado River is a interesting example for you to use here. Every drop of that river's water is apportioned by law, interstate agreements, and international treaty.
Last edited:
Bruddah IZ
DA
Minimum wage:
is it ethical for the state to forcibly price out of jobs some workers (who, not incidentally, will be the least-skilled and most-disadvantaged workers amongst us) in order to artificially boost the incomes of other workers?
is it ethical for the state to forcibly price out of jobs some workers (who, not incidentally, will be the least-skilled and most-disadvantaged workers amongst us) in order to artificially boost the incomes of other workers?
You are exactly the kind of person I expected to be suckered in by Trump.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I noticed.
Bruddah IZ
DA
… is from page 197 of Steven Landsburg’s 2009 book, The Big Questions:
Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay a $20-an-hour American for goods you could have bought from a $5-an-hour Mexican, you’re being extorted. When a free-trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation. To compensate your former exploiters is to succumb to Stockholm syndrome.
Finally in modern America, the face and voice of protectionism belong unmistakably to a bully. This protectionist isn’t camouflaged and prettied-up for public consumption. This pig doesn’t wear even lipstick. This protectionist more fully than any that I’ve ever encountered reveals the true nature of protectionism. The bullying, boorish, bloviating, ignorant, hypocritical, megalomaniacal, greedy, grasping, and unprincipled Donald Trump is the unmasked image and un-euphemized spokesman of protectionism. “Progressive” supporters of protectionism might think – they certainly wish – that protectionism (and its mercantilist accouterments, such as that great geyser of cronyism, the U.S. Export-Import Bank) is something different than what Trump threatens to unleash, but these “Progressives” are mistaken: protectionism, like Trump, is by its nature bullying.
The bullies were here long before Trump
Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay a $20-an-hour American for goods you could have bought from a $5-an-hour Mexican, you’re being extorted. When a free-trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation. To compensate your former exploiters is to succumb to Stockholm syndrome.
Finally in modern America, the face and voice of protectionism belong unmistakably to a bully. This protectionist isn’t camouflaged and prettied-up for public consumption. This pig doesn’t wear even lipstick. This protectionist more fully than any that I’ve ever encountered reveals the true nature of protectionism. The bullying, boorish, bloviating, ignorant, hypocritical, megalomaniacal, greedy, grasping, and unprincipled Donald Trump is the unmasked image and un-euphemized spokesman of protectionism. “Progressive” supporters of protectionism might think – they certainly wish – that protectionism (and its mercantilist accouterments, such as that great geyser of cronyism, the U.S. Export-Import Bank) is something different than what Trump threatens to unleash, but these “Progressives” are mistaken: protectionism, like Trump, is by its nature bullying.
The bullies were here long before Trump
Trump is what happens when people who are not in government think they can tell the government what the people want.
Its an insane proposition.
How can the people understand whats best?
Its an insane proposition.
How can the people understand whats best?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Agree. How can the people in government understand what is best?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
The US progressive tax system is for the most part, working as intended. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. Yes, the ultra rich can significantly reduce their overall tax rate through the use of tax efficient investments and strategies. The rich pay most of the taxes collected in the US. The constant cries to tax the rich are mostly a political sound bite that appeals to people who don't really understand our tax system and who pays most of our taxes.
Wez
DA
"It's easy to judge others by their worst examples and ourselves by our best intentions" - GW Bush
The BO Presidency has enrichened the top 1% to a very large degree. Any notion that BO has created a welfare state, I vigorously reject. He was supposed to "clean up" Wall Street, instead he doubled down on the same leadership that led us down the drain.
Bruddah IZ
DA
.....banking systems are fragile by design because it is impossible to take politics out of bank regulation. And it's impossible to do so because there are inherent conflicts of interest between government and banking systems such that banks need governments and governments need banks. Those conflicts of interest basically boil down to three features. First, governments simultaneously regulate banks and borrow from banks. Second, governments simultaneously use their police power in order to enforce debt contracts on behalf of banks; but people who are being, let's say, forced out of their houses because they've defaulted on a mortgage are voters, and so when banking crises occur governments often have reasons to not enforce those debt contracts. Third, governments are in charge of liquidating failed banks. But the biggest group of creditors to a bank when a bank is liquidated are its depositors--who are voters. And so governments have incentives to change the rules of government deposit insurance for political ends--so often extend deposit insurance beyond its statutory limits. Because of those three basic inherent conflicts of interest, it's extremely difficult to remove politics from banking. Governments have, or parties inside the government have inherent reasons for wanting to use the banking system for their own ends, and at the same time, bankers need the government in order to do things like enforce debt contracts. There's no getting politics out.--Stephen Haber co-author with Charles Calomiris of Fragile by Design, https://www.amazon.com/Fragile-Design-Political-Princeton-Economic/dp/0691155240/
Again you are speculating. I gotta believe we would have heard from someone down stream who was harmed by the negotiated settlement.
That's not what happened here.
Perhaps the cattle did crap upstream, they do that with or without a stock pond.
But just as a beaver pond slows and then cleans water by allowing heavy sediments, like your bullshit, to fall to the bottom where it breaks down
allowing trees and plants to thrive...
The Colorado is interesting because there are many dams on it. Yet, as you point out every drop that folks claim, gets to them.
Other wise it would uncontrollably flood or perhaps slow to a trickle.
As much as the EPA wants to claim that water, they can't. Stock ponds are exempt. But you know that.
As I said already, the whole story is not what was printed in the paper or the PLF press release. How do you think EPA and Corps of Engineers got wind of Johnson's dam? The only people who had any way to know about it are his neighbors - think about it.
Folks' claims on the Colorado are based on how much water there is in the river, from flow measured at points just above the big reservoirs, or by measuring the level of Lake Mead. Arizona and California get a lot less than they could use, because that's all there is, especially during the current drought. About a month ago, Lake Mead reached the lowest level it has seen since it was filled in the 30's.
Wez
DA
Awww, you and he have so much in common...
Asshole neighbors.
You may have a point.
The fact still remains, that the EPA bit off more than it was entitled to chew.