Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

I added in nominee for labor secretary in the edit. This phone is funny sometimes when I put stuff in.

Shared Misery? Have you seen the corporate profits and the stock market. If Obama is trying to be a socialist he is doing a bad job.

If we had passed the American Jobs Act and the didn't have all the government employee layoffs driven by GOP which the President to his failure agreed to unemployment would be under 6 percent. I know people are skeptical about CBO projections on Jobs Acts but even if you just took the math from the layoffs the unemployment would be at 7.

You still can't get over this, huh? You really believe the federal government's role is to provide jobs, provide education, provide healthcare, food, housing, retirement, etc? Astonishing.

Democrats had a super majority for obama's first 2 years, you got your stimulus/ spending package, and unemployment went up. Now you claim if we pass another "jobs act", which is just another spending/ stimulus bill, unemployment would be under 6 percent? Keep dreaming.

 

[GoIrish41]

How about Opportunity and Growth. Maybe a job or shot at prosperity instead of shared misery.
Conservatives don't look at the color of one's skin but at their content. Why are democrats constantly pitching one group against another?

"Obama's Hispanic"?

Wow...we now can see how you liberals see people...

Opportunity and growth for whom? The 1% who would keep their loopholes to avoid taxes while their companies are setting record highs in the stock market. In the meantime, spending cuts to deal with a "debt crisis" that even the Speaker of the House admits does not exist is paid for by the elderly through cuts to SS and Medicare. Is that the kind of shared prosperity you are talking about?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Opportunity and growth for whom? The 1% who would keep their loopholes to avoid taxes while their companies are setting record highs in the stock market. In the meantime, spending cuts to deal with a "debt crisis" that even the Speaker of the House admits does not exist is paid for by the elderly through cuts to SS and Medicare. Is that the kind of shared prosperity you are talking about?

I believe Boner said that while there isn't an immediate one today, we need to start enacting sustainable spending measure to make sure the cuts later on are not more painful than what the cuts are today.

 

[GoIrish41]

I believe Boner said that while there isn't an immediate one today, we need to start enacting sustainable spending measure to make sure the cuts later on are not more painful than what the cuts are today.

He said Boner

This is the first time that he acknowledged there was not an immediate debt crisis. I think that is significant in that next week, when his position is weakened even more, he may retreat to an even softer position. Perhaps he will concede that Congress is doing little to nothing to create jobs and that doing so would probably have a more profound effect with fewer damaging effects to real people than the austerity he is currenly advocating. Just saying, when someone backs off from a positon they held so firmly it should make people question how strongly he held that conviction in the first place. In short, maybe we shouldn't take what he says at face value.

 

[Ndaccountant]

He said Boner

This is the first time that he acknowledged there was not an immediate debt crisis. I think that is significant in that next week, when his position is weakened even more, he may retreat to an even softer position. Perhaps he will concede that Congress is doing little to nothing to create jobs and that doing so would probably have a more profound effect with fewer damaging effects to real people than the austerity he is currenly advocating. Just saying, when someone backs off from a positon they held so firmly it should make people question how strongly he held that conviction in the first place. In short, maybe we shouldn't take what he says at face value.[/QUOTE]

I don't take anything at face value from any politician.

I said it once and I will say it again. We have a revenue and spending problem and we need to act now before it is too late. We have a huge gererational shift that is just starting and it has the potential to create many issues in our economy if we are not prepared.

If the government wants to help industry, pass the Keystone pipeline. The President does not have anything standing in his way anymore except that he might **** off a few people in his party. He could also get going on natural gas. We are sitting on a gold mine and the progress is starting to accelerate. We are close.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I don't take anything at face value from any politician.

I said it once and I will say it again. We have a revenue and spending problem and we need to act now before it is too late. We have a huge gererational shift that is just starting and it has the potential to create many issues in our economy if we are not prepared.

If the government wants to help industry, pass the Keystone pipeline. The President does not have anything standing in his way anymore except that he might **** off a few people in his party. He could also get going on natural gas. We are sitting on a gold mine and the progress is starting to accelerate. We are close.

+1

FYI, the offshore moratorium cost more jobs than the entire stimulus created. And that's including Cash for Clunkers, the crown jewel of Obama's economic policy.

 

[enrico514]

He said Boner

This is the first time that he acknowledged there was not an immediate debt crisis. I think that is significant in that next week, when his position is weakened even more, he may retreat to an even softer position. Perhaps he will concede that Congress is doing little to nothing to create jobs and that doing so would probably have a more profound effect with fewer damaging effects to real people than the austerity he is currenly advocating. Just saying, when someone backs off from a positon they held so firmly it should make people question how strongly he held that conviction in the first place. In short, maybe we shouldn't take what he says at face value.[/QUOTE]

I don't take anything at face value from any politician.

I said it once and I will say it again. We have a revenue and spending problem and we need to act now before it is too late. We have a huge gererational shift that is just starting and it has the potential to create many issues in our economy if we are not prepared.

If the government wants to help industry, pass the Keystone pipeline. The President does not have anything standing in his way anymore except that he might **** off a few people in his party. He could also get going on natural gas. We are sitting on a gold mine and the progress is starting to accelerate. We are close.

As a TRP shareholder I fully support this!

 

[chicago51]

If I am the President I would try bribe the GOP with Keystone pipeline. Make a trade authorization of the Keystone pipeline for say the American Jobs Act or some type of energy project he wants.

If he is worried about the climate activist he can always authorize the pipeline but then raise standards on carbon emissions. The President has the power do this under the Clean Air Act. I think can throw the climate activist in his party a bone and still authorize the Keystone Pipeline.

 

[Ndaccountant]

If I am the President I would try bribe the GOP with Keystone pipeline. Make a trade authorization of the Keystone pipeline for say the American Jobs Act or some type of energy project he wants.

If he is worried about the climate activist he can always authorize the pipeline but then raise standards on carbon emissions. The President has the power do this under the Clean Air Act. I think can throw the climate activist in his party a bone and still authorize the Keystone Pipeline.

He has already done that. He used that up when the whole cap and trade was correctly dropped.

The thing is, the easiest away around the carbon emissions is LNG and CNG. It's abundent and cheap, it's American derived, would create jobs and lower emissions. Why isn't this getting done? BTW, don't blame lobbying either, Big Oil has made big investments in LNG & CNG's future.

 

[GoIrish41]

He said Boner

This is the first time that he acknowledged there was not an immediate debt crisis. I think that is significant in that next week, when his position is weakened even more, he may retreat to an even softer position. Perhaps he will concede that Congress is doing little to nothing to create jobs and that doing so would probably have a more profound effect with fewer damaging effects to real people than the austerity he is currenly advocating. Just saying, when someone backs off from a positon they held so firmly it should make people question how strongly he held that conviction in the first place. In short, maybe we shouldn't take what he says at face value.[/QUOTE]

I don't take anything at face value from any politician.

I said it once and I will say it again. We have a revenue and spending problem and we need to act now before it is too late. We have a huge gererational shift that is just starting and it has the potential to create many issues in our economy if we are not prepared.

If the government wants to help industry, pass the Keystone pipeline. The President does not have anything standing in his way anymore except that he might **** off a few people in his party. He could also get going on natural gas. We are sitting on a gold mine and the progress is starting to accelerate. We are close.

So you are saying what the government should do is to support initiatives that would make the oil companies even richer and more powerful than they already are,. The pipeline isn't going to create any long-term jobs. While some rabid supporters who aren't afraid to look silly say the pipeline could create 100,000 jobs, TransCanada estimates 20,000 total. A Department Study determined that it would likely be more than 5,000 jobs. No matter who is right, they are all temporary jobs in construction and manufacturing. And, there is no guaranteed that manufacturing would be done in the U.S. All of this to create a pipeline that would deliver oil to US refineries so they could turn it into gasoline and diesel to sell to other countries.

Natural gas is certainly abundant, but I think there is ample evidence that it is polluting the US aquafirs:
Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling - ProPublica
There are dozens of reports from all over the country in every place they are fracking. Is the tradeoff of fracking people in these areas having to give up drinking water? I'm not saying that fracking doesn't create jobs, but it also destroys the environment. But at least it burns cleaner than the gas in the cars of the future.

If the government really wants to help industry, it should put massive investment into green energy technologies like solar and wind. Not only does it have the ability to transform the economy, but it also makes us more pollitically stable by reducing our dependency on oil. But, Republicans are against that because their Big Oil sugar daddy is against it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Natural gas is certainly abundant, but I think there is ample evidence that it is polluting the US aquafirs:
Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling - ProPublica
There are dozens of reports from all over the country in every place they are fracking. Is the tradeoff of fracking people in these areas having to give up drinking water? I'm not saying that fracking doesn't create jobs, but it also destroys the environment. But at least it burns cleaner than the gas in the cars of the future.

Hydraulic Fracking is used in 90% of oil wells in the US. You don't see widespread destruction.

For what it's worth, the regulations were way too relaxed and even Republican governors have stepped up to work with oil companies for safe drilling.

If the government really wants to help industry, it should put massive investment into green energy technologies like solar and wind. Not only does it have the ability to transform the economy, but it also makes us more pollitically stable by reducing our dependency on oil. But, Republicans are against that because their Big Oil sugar daddy is against it.

You don't think big oil exists on the left too? You're kidding, right?

There is already a pretty massive investment going into solar research, and rightfully so. Wind isn't a totally viable investment, for obvious reasons.

Facts are, until there are breakthroughs in battery technology and solar cell efficiency, we're stuck with fossil fuels, and natural gas is the way to go. It's pretty cheap, pollutes much less than coal, and has the potential to bring millions of manufacturing jobs back to the midwest.

 

[GoIrish41]

not to change the subject but it appears chemical weapons were used in Syria.

Syria rebels, regime blame each other for first alleged chemical weapons attack - CBS News

 

[Ndaccountant]

So you are saying what the government should do is to support initiatives that would make the oil companies even richer and more powerful than they already are,. The pipeline isn't going to create any long-term jobs. While some rabid supporters who aren't afraid to look silly say the pipeline could create 100,000 jobs, TransCanada estimates 20,000 total. A Department Study determined that it would likely be more than 5,000 jobs. No matter who is right, they are all temporary jobs in construction and manufacturing. And, there is no guaranteed that manufacturing would be done in the U.S. All of this to create a pipeline that would deliver oil to US refineries so they could turn it into gasoline and diesel to sell to other countries.

Natural gas is certainly abundant, but I think there is ample evidence that it is polluting the US aquafirs:
Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling - ProPublica
There are dozens of reports from all over the country in every place they are fracking. Is the tradeoff of fracking people in these areas having to give up drinking water? I'm not saying that fracking doesn't create jobs, but it also destroys the environment. But at least it burns cleaner than the gas in the cars of the future.

If the government really wants to help industry, it should put massive investment into green energy technologies like solar and wind. Not only does it have the ability to transform the economy, but it also makes us more pollitically stable by reducing our dependency on oil. But, Republicans are against that because their Big Oil sugar daddy is against it.

So let me get this straight. Building roads and bridges are good for the economy and creates jobs even after the projects are over (based on your post a few days ago), but building a pipeline is temp? The oil and gas boom in North America provides jobs and incentives for investment. Fleets of trucks are already turning to LNG and CNG to lower their costs. We need the infrastructure in place to help promote this.

Also, we have enough oil and gas in North America to be self-sustained until we can produce alternative fuels at a sustainable price. We aren't close to that yet.

 

[Black Irish]

So you are saying what the government should do is to support initiatives that would make the oil companies even richer and more powerful than they already are,. The pipeline isn't going to create any long-term jobs. While some rabid supporters who aren't afraid to look silly say the pipeline could create 100,000 jobs, TransCanada estimates 20,000 total. A Department Study determined that it would likely be more than 5,000 jobs. No matter who is right, they are all temporary jobs in construction and manufacturing. And, there is no guaranteed that manufacturing would be done in the U.S. All of this to create a pipeline that would deliver oil to US refineries so they could turn it into gasoline and diesel to sell to other countries.

Natural gas is certainly abundant, but I think there is ample evidence that it is polluting the US aquafirs:
Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling - ProPublica
There are dozens of reports from all over the country in every place they are fracking. Is the tradeoff of fracking people in these areas having to give up drinking water? I'm not saying that fracking doesn't create jobs, but it also destroys the environment. But at least it burns cleaner than the gas in the cars of the future.

If the government really wants to help industry, it should put massive investment into green energy technologies like solar and wind. Not only does it have the ability to transform the economy, but it also makes us more pollitically stable by reducing our dependency on oil. But, Republicans are against that because their Big Oil sugar daddy is against it.

Infrastructure investment that the Left keeps harping on won't create any long term jobs either. Does that mean it's a bad idea?

 

[GoIrish41]

So let me get this straight. Building roads and bridges are good for the economy and creates jobs even after the projects are over (based on your post a few days ago), but building a pipeline is temp? The oil and gas boom in North America provides jobs and incentives for investment. Fleets of trucks are already turning to LNG and CNG to lower their costs. We need the infrastructure in place to help promote this.

Also, we have enough oil and gas in North America to be self-sustained until we can produce alternative fuels at a sustainable price. We aren't close to that yet.

I'm not suggesting that the infrastructure jobs created by road and bridge repair are going to last forever, but when I hear advocates for the pipeline say "it's going to create 100,000 jobs" they never mention the temporary nature of those jobs. The pipeline would serve to stimulate the economy just as the road construction would, or rebuilding the nation's electrical grid would. I would argue though, that more people would benefit from fixing America's existing infrastructure than building this pipeline which, in the long run, is really only going to make Big Oil even bigger and extend this country's dependence on fossil fuels by kicking the can down the road. Jobs are great, but if having them means we destroy our environment, I'd say there are smarter ways to create them. The water supply is pretty important to the sustainment of life, and when people can catch their water on fire that comes from their faucet, that is really not good.

 

[chicago51]

Couple things here:

1) Corporate media refuses to cover the progressive budget.
2) The deficit is falling and almost nobody knows

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/19-11#.UUkujHJZv9s.twitter

Mainstream media is an epic failure. I know many posters hate the progressive budget but I think we can agree that media the is nothing more than a voice for corporations .

 

[pkt77242]

You still can't get over this, huh? You really believe the federal government's role is to provide jobs, provide education, provide healthcare, food, housing, retirement, etc? Astonishing.

Democrats had a super majority for obama's first 2 years, you got your stimulus/ spending package, and unemployment went up. Now you claim if we pass another "jobs act", which is just another spending/ stimulus bill, unemployment would be under 6 percent? Keep dreaming.

Umm, you do realize that the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator and is not a picture of the economy as it currently stands at that time. Also there are a ton of reputable economists who thought we went too small on the first stimulus and that is part of why it didn't work. This is an interesting article from the WSJ Falling Short on the Economic Stimulus - WSJ.com not exactly a bastation of liberalism and for the liberals http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=0

 

[enrico514]

Umm, you do realize that the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator and is not a picture of the economy as it currently stands at that time. Also there are a ton of reputable economists who thought we went too small on the first stimulus and that is part of why it didn't work. This is an interesting article from the WSJ Falling Short on the Economic Stimulus - WSJ.com not exactly a bastation of liberalism and for the liberals http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=0

Do you know anything about the author? From Wikipedia:

DeLong is both a liberal in the modern American political sense...

 

[BobD]

 

[NDFan4Life]

A&M study says raising minimum wage would not stimulate economy

Texas A&M University researchers say raising the minimum wage will reduce job creation, but will not affect employee turnover or layoffs.

In President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, he proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9, along with an annual boost for inflation, sparking a national debate.

The recent Texas A&M study, "Effects of the Minimum Wage on Employment Dynamics," analyzed the factors related to the minimum wage and changes in employment and found that job creation was reduced substantially, but jobs lost did not increase.

The study by Jonathan Meer, an assistant professor of economics at Texas A&M, and Jeremy West, an economics graduate student, shows that net job growth falls in response to an increase in the minimum wage, but employee turnover is unaffected.

"This makes intuitive sense: firing people is unpleasant and costly, so adjustment takes some time as employers reduce their hiring of new or replacement workers," Meer said in a statement.

He says there are numerous reasons not to increase the minimum wage or to even have one at all. He said when something costs more, people purchase less of it.

Meer concluded in the study that raising the minimum wage has a negative effect on hiring and the number of people it would help would not help stimulate the economy.

"While some people may get slightly higher pay and be somewhat better off, being unemployed is really, really bad, and there's no reason why we should be focusing on the people who currently have these jobs (and will keep them) rather than those who are trying to get these jobs but can't," Meer said.

Economists have been arguing over the years about whether the minimum wage can lead to broader economic benefits or whether it would unfairly burden employers.

In 1994, a study found that a rise in New Jersey's minimum wage did not reduce employment levels in the fast food industry. Other economists have argued that comparing different states over time shows that raising the minimum wage hurts job growth.

More than 15 million workers earn the national minimum wage, making about $15,080 a year.

In numerical terms, Texas has more workers toiling for minimum wage or less than in any other state, according to a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report. Last year, 452,000 Texans earned the minimum wage or less. That includes young workers paid the subminimum training wage.

Ten states already make similar cost-of-living adjustments to the minimum wage. In Washington state, workers earn at least $9.19 an hour, which is the highest minimum in the country. A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia have minimum wages above the federal rate of $7.25.

A&M study says raising minimum wage would not stimulate economy - Houston Chronicle

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...The recent Texas A&M study, "Effects of the Minimum Wage on Employment Dynamics," analyzed the factors related to the minimum wage and changes in employment and found that job creation was reduced substantially, but jobs lost did not increase.

The study by Jonathan Meer, an assistant professor of economics at Texas A&M, and Jeremy West, an economics graduate student, shows that net job growth falls in response to an increase in the minimum wage, but employee turnover is unaffected...

That makes sense, business-wise. As a business your wages and positions are "sticky", meaning that terminating people is much more difficult and disruptive than simply not creating a new position in the first place.

 

[GoIrish41]

A&M study says raising minimum wage would not stimulate economy

Texas A&M University researchers say raising the minimum wage will reduce job creation, but will not affect employee turnover or layoffs.

In President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, he proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9, along with an annual boost for inflation, sparking a national debate.

The recent Texas A&M study, "Effects of the Minimum Wage on Employment Dynamics," analyzed the factors related to the minimum wage and changes in employment and found that job creation was reduced substantially, but jobs lost did not increase.

The study by Jonathan Meer, an assistant professor of economics at Texas A&M, and Jeremy West, an economics graduate student, shows that net job growth falls in response to an increase in the minimum wage, but employee turnover is unaffected.

"This makes intuitive sense: firing people is unpleasant and costly, so adjustment takes some time as employers reduce their hiring of new or replacement workers," Meer said in a statement.

He says there are numerous reasons not to increase the minimum wage or to even have one at all. He said when something costs more, people purchase less of it.

Meer concluded in the study that raising the minimum wage has a negative effect on hiring and the number of people it would help would not help stimulate the economy.

"While some people may get slightly higher pay and be somewhat better off, being unemployed is really, really bad, and there's no reason why we should be focusing on the people who currently have these jobs (and will keep them) rather than those who are trying to get these jobs but can't," Meer said.

Economists have been arguing over the years about whether the minimum wage can lead to broader economic benefits or whether it would unfairly burden employers.

In 1994, a study found that a rise in New Jersey's minimum wage did not reduce employment levels in the fast food industry. Other economists have argued that comparing different states over time shows that raising the minimum wage hurts job growth.

More than 15 million workers earn the national minimum wage, making about $15,080 a year.

In numerical terms, Texas has more workers toiling for minimum wage or less than in any other state, according to a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report. Last year, 452,000 Texans earned the minimum wage or less. That includes young workers paid the subminimum training wage.

Ten states already make similar cost-of-living adjustments to the minimum wage. In Washington state, workers earn at least $9.19 an hour, which is the highest minimum in the country. A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia have minimum wages above the federal rate of $7.25.

A&M study says raising minimum wage would not stimulate economy - Houston Chronicle

I don't think this study should be taken as the gospel.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't think this study should be taken as the gospel.

Ahhhh, but Paul Krugman's work and views are to be taken as Gospel beacuse he has a PhD behind his name. Oh and won that prestigious 2008 Nobel Prize that recognized his "work" (theories, nothing else) in "international trade patters."

Got it.

 

[GoIrish41]

The study by Jonathan Meer, an assistant professor of economics at Texas A&M, and Jeremy West, an economics graduate student, shows that net job growth falls in response to an increase in the minimum wage, but employee turnover is unaffected.

Ahhhh, but Paul Krugman's work and views are to be taken as Gospel beacuse he has a PhD behind his name. Oh and won that prestigious 2008 Nobel Prize that recognized his "work" (theories, nothing else) in "international trade patters."

Got it.

1. The difference between an assistant professor, a grad student and a guy who won the Nobel Prize is pretty big, so what you are saying here makes you sound dumber than I believe you actually are.

2. Go back and read my posts about Krugman. Not once did I say anything about or defend anything he ever said or did or even come close to saying anything he said was to be take as gospel. I was arguing about a dumba** statement (not dis-similar to the one you made above) about him being "a joke."

 

[Ndaccountant]

To be fair it expanded rather quickly there for a few years for all of the stimulas, Census workers, etc. I would hope it is shrinking quickly.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm not suggesting that the infrastructure jobs created by road and bridge repair are going to last forever, but when I hear advocates for the pipeline say "it's going to create 100,000 jobs" they never mention the temporary nature of those jobs. The pipeline would serve to stimulate the economy just as the road construction would, or rebuilding the nation's electrical grid would. I would argue though, that more people would benefit from fixing America's existing infrastructure than building this pipeline which, in the long run, is really only going to make Big Oil even bigger and extend this country's dependence on fossil fuels by kicking the can down the road. Jobs are great, but if having them means we destroy our environment, I'd say there are smarter ways to create them. The water supply is pretty important to the sustainment of life, and when people can catch their water on fire that comes from their faucet, that is really not good.

I view the pipeline as a national security measure, no different than the grid. The issue at hand is that we are not close on cost effective renewable energy on a massive level. Having a pipeline creates jobs in the near ternm, would help foster lower costs, especially when it is combined with Nat Gas, would provide incentives for investment and provide us with enough security to allow the private companies to continue to persue sustainable renewable energy. It really should be viewed as a win win for both sides of the aisle.

 

[GoIrish41]

I view the pipeline as a national security measure, no different than the grid. The issue at hand is that we are not close on cost effective renewable energy on a massive level. Having a pipeline creates jobs in the near ternm, would help foster lower costs, especially when it is combined with Nat Gas, would provide incentives for investment and provide us with enough security to allow the private companies to continue to persue sustainable renewable energy. It really should be viewed as a win win for both sides of the aisle.

The people who cannot drink or bathe in their water anymore probably don't care. Their wells have been rendered useless by methane released in the fracking process or in some cases directly polluted by fracking chemicals. They aren't concerned what people in D.C. might think is a win win. They can catch their water on fire.

If wells in isolated areas around fracking sites are affected, how long do you think it will take for that damage to make its way into the larger aquifers that where almost everyone ultimately gets their water? Water always finds its way. And in this case, when it does then we have a massive ecological problem in the most densely populated part of the country. I recognize the short term economic benefits of fracking, but I can also envision the long term problems, too. What is the cost if the entire norhtern East Coast's water supply became unusable?

 

[DSully1995]

The people who cannot drink or bathe in their water anymore probably don't care. Their wells have been rendered useless by methane released in the fracking process or in some cases directly polluted by fracking chemicals. They aren't concerned what people in D.C. might think is a win win. They can catch their water on fire.

If wells in isolated areas around fracking sites are affected, how long do you think it will take for that damage to make its way into the larger aquifers that where almost everyone ultimately gets their water? Water always finds its way. And in this case, when it does then we have a massive ecological problem in the most densely populated part of the country. I recognize the short term economic benefits of fracking, but I can also envision the long term problems, too. What is the cost if the entire norhtern East Coast's water supply became unusable?

Theres evidence that this has been over stated, and that the leaking is from human error in the wells, not the fracking process itself, bumps should be expected but all in all i think its for the better

 

[GoIrish41]

Theres evidence that this has been over stated, and that the leaking is from human error in the wells, not the fracking process itself, bumps should be expected but all in all i think its for the better

Whether it is human error from fracking or fracking itself, it is causing major water problems for people. So the question becomes, should we just soldier ahead before we really know to do it without destroying people's lives? Because, let's face it there is ample evidence that everywhere there is fracking there in contaminated water. Or should we figure out how to do it safely before we cause an ecological disaster in the most populous part of the country?

Much of that evidence you talk about is from studies commissioned by the companies or governments that are profiting from fracking.

 

[chicago51]

Umm, you do realize that the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator and is not a picture of the economy as it currently stands at that time. Also there are a ton of reputable economists who thought we went too small on the first stimulus and that is part of why it didn't work. This is an interesting article from the WSJ Falling Short on the Economic Stimulus - WSJ.com not exactly a bastation of liberalism and for the liberals http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=0

Good stuff there.

You can make the case that what stimulus we did has at least so far has saved the US from a double dip recession like the austerity folks have had happen to them.

As soon as the financial crisis hit the global econonmy the UK went for austerity right off the bat, while the US did the stimulus. I am not saying things are great right now but we haven't doubled dipped yet. We shall see what the sequester does going forward. In UK the populace is starting to wake up about austerity and there have some protest now that Britain appears to be headed for a triple dip recession.