Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
|
|
So Hermit Master
why do you vote Republican if you are SO concerned about the national debt?
your party has been in control of Federal Spending since 2010 when they took over
the House, as you know the Constitution gives the House spending authority.
The Republican House has added 4 trillion dollars to the debt since they took over.
Why do you vote for Republicans?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
So Hermit Master
why do you vote Republican if you are SO concerned about the national debt?
your party has been in control of Federal Spending since 2010 when they took over
the House, as you know the Constitution gives the House spending authority.
The Republican House has added 4 trillion dollars to the debt since they took over.
Why do you vote for Republicans?
Oh boy.... let's blame the party controlling the House.
In '06, the GOP controlled House passed a budget with a 161 Billion dollar deficit.
Then the Dems took over, adding 4.465 Trillion Dollars to the debt. Three of those deficits averaged over 1.3 Trillion Dollars.
Since the GOP regained control, deficits have steadily dropped, with the 2015 budget less than 1/3rd of the last Democrat budget.
* This is where you come back blaming Bush.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Debts rise during recessions.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
In '06, the GOP controlled House passed a budget with a 161 Billion dollar deficit.
don't forget that the republicans were doing some fancy dancing with the Budget. Every year of the Iraq war they kept asking for more funds, after the budget was done. In 2006 Bush asked for 94 billion dollars. The next year it was 154 billion..
Plus those first years of Obama involved a crushed economy and the bail outs.
The national debt doubled under Bush. So he isn't all that clean.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
I never did understand the objection to the keystone pipeline.
We burn oil. Thats a fact. we have hundreds of pipelines. Pipelines move oil safer and cheaper without burning a lot more fuel, which is what trucks do. So Why is this one different? If the route is the problem, then why not change the route?
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
The Gloom and Doom Party hates good news for the country. Good news goes against what Limbaugh & Hannity feed them on a daily basis. Buncha sadsacks.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
I never did understand the objection to the keystone pipeline.
It would have caused catastrophic global warming.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
John asked We burn oil. Thats a fact. we have hundreds of pipelines. Pipelines move oil safer and cheaper without burning a lot more fuel, which is what trucks do. So Why is this one different? If the route is the problem, then why not change the route?
Because the route proposed is probably the least contentious one which is why it was proposed to begin with. Additionally, none of that oil is directly used by the US. It's all headed for China. I don't have a strong opinion on the pipeline itself. This one isn't much different than all the rest of the many pipelines that already exist, it's just the one that people decided to throw a huge fit about.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
it's just the one that people decided to throw a huge fit about.
which is the part that I don't get.
Plus oil is a world market. More oil available keeps the price down. Making oil harder to get in order to drive the price up which would cause people to use less is I guess the reason they are against it.
But to me it just means the oil will go to a different refinery and the jobs will go there. Though that isn't all bad because refineries do have their own issues, such as pollution. But we need oil. We have the refineries. If we don't use them, then we will lose them and become even more dependent on other countries. It just seems kind of backwards thinking to me.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
HD, where did you see that the oil is headed to China? If that were the
case wouldn't the pipeline go to the west coast?
Obama's nixing of it is like another regressive tax on the less well off.
It's all well and good to do things to wean us off of oil but this hardly
does that. All it can do is make it more expensive.
ps
John M, sorry to play the parrot. ;-)
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
A lot of it has to do with opposing development of a remote area in Canada, too.
But yeah, I share your point. I oppose the pipeline, but I think the issue is mostly symbolic on both sides. Conservatives have vastly overstated its impact on jobs.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Reilly, I'm wild ass guessing here, but I'd imagine that placing a pipeline over the Rockies and coast ranges would be formidable.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
No more formidable than the Alaska Pipeline although these days it would
be a lot more expensive. But, the AK's safety record is virtually unblemished,
save one drunk with a rifle.
BTW, the Canucks already have a pipeline to Vancouver from the Alberta fields.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
This would force investors hands into investing in green technology,
If this is the reason, then I can accept that.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Jammie, the investors have already delivered their verdict on 'green tech'.
That's why VW's stock price has plummeted. We're a long time away from
ridding ourselves of oil and making it more expensive can only drive technology
so far and so fast. Besides, wouldn't it be better just to use it all up
as fast as possible?
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
I oppose the pipeline, but I think the issue is mostly symbolic on both sides. Conservatives have vastly overstated its impact on jobs.
Yup, and as the president also said the impact on the environment/APGCC was overstated.
besides overstating the impact on jobs my biggest issue with this is tar sands oil is the dirtiest of the dirty. Keep it in the ground. Period.
But make no mistake - i'm all for alternative energy. But we'll need fossil fuels to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. The problem is those bought and paid for by the Kock brothers have no interest in the weaning process (but they'll go along with it so long as the payoffs continue).
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
That's why VW's stock price has plummeted
I would disagree with this interpretation. VW's stock went down because they were caught cheating. Which means their systems aren't really environmentally friendly and people want environmentally friendlier systems.
They sold more vehicles because the vehicle supposedly met higher standards. More sales meant more investment. Now that its proven that they don't meet higher standards, then investors realized that they would have fewer sales, and thus pulled their investments.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
John M - exactly.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!