Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 3,931 to 3,945 of 14437
-
10-05-22 22:51 #10507
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by Travv [View Original Post]
-
10-05-22 22:44 #10506
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/04/25/-/media/data-visualizations/interactives/2016/fiscal-50/docs/2013/PopulationChangeData.xlsx?v=20220420
-
10-05-22 22:17 #10505
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by PVMonger [View Original Post]
Reformulated gasoline to control smog is required in Houston and New York City, and I don't believe the cost is substantially higher than the respective statewide averages. Which again aren't at huge premiums to the price in Texas.
A quick glance at requirements for California gasoline makes me think the state is micromanaging formulations, without giving appropriate consideration to costs and benefits. That is, without allowing the refineries to use cheaper methods to produce similar results. But I don't know enough about refining to really know.
I don't view the issue as Republican vs. Democrat. Colorado and New York are blue and their prices aren't that out of whack with the rest of the country. I view it as a California issue. California is kind of like a "gasoline island", in that it doesn't have the oil and product pipelines (gasoline pipelines) that crisscross most of the rest of the USA. The reason was because California had lots of oil production and refinery capacity, so no need to interconnect. A person could make the same arguments about California and gasoline as you made about Texas and electricity, the big difference being that California is no longer a power house in terms of oil and gasoline production. And, in terms of power and fuel, Texas still is. California is exacerbating the problem, for people who spend a large % of their disposable income on gasoline, with high taxes and fees, by discouraging oil production, and, I think, by micromanaging gasoline formulations.
As to the refineries, I note that ten with capacity of 205,750 barrels per day were permanently shut down in Texas between 1990 and 2021, while fourteen with capacity of 998,050 barrels per day were shut in California. I'm using "total downstream charge capacity."
https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/table13.pdf
-
10-05-22 21:17 #10504
Posts: 1604Nice try, but incorrect
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
Secondly, your analysis above fails to account for several issues. One issue is the number of refineries in the state. I'll bet that Texas has more than double the number of refineries as does California and has for a long time. Another issue is the fact that Texas has many more pipelines than does California. The third issue that you "forgot to mention" is that California requires special gasoline formulation that makes gasoline sold there more expensive.
As a reminder, I did not say that California gasoline was cheaper than Texas gasoline. You obviously interpreted it that way but, hey, show me where I said it.
-
10-05-22 19:51 #10503
Posts: 657Hurricane-Ravaged Florida Town Raises Ukraine Flag So Biden Will Send Aid
FT MYERS, FL — In a desperate attempt to get help for its citizens and deal with the growing humanitarian crisis in the area, a Florida town devastated by Hurricane Ian has taken the unusual step of raising the Ukrainian flag, hoping to convince Congress to send aid.
"The Ukrainian government flies this flag, and they're just swimming in billions and billions of dollars in support from the United States. We're just swimming in sewage," said Ray Valdivia, the Response Coordinator working to assess the damage in the town. "We tried going through the normal channels to get help from the government, but Biden just sent us a letter of "best wishes" that looks like it may have been written in crayon."
Though the situation across the Sunshine State has been critical since the hurricane blew through last week, Congress has maintained a keen focus on funneling astronomical amounts of taxpayer money overseas to pay the salaries of Ukrainian government officials and support American defense contractors' war efforts against Russia.
"These requests coming in from Florida are small potatoes," Nancy Pelosi slurred at her meeting with the press when asked about providing hurricane relief. "Sending money to Florida would not save the world from Russia or effectively launder the taxpayer money in any way."
At publishing time, citizens of Ft. Myers were working on using fake Ukrainian accents and inviting Hollywood celebrities to visit their devastated towns, hoping to convince the ignorant actors that they were visiting war-torn Kyiv instead. . .
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
-
10-05-22 19:09 #10502
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]Originally Posted by Spidy [View Original Post]
On the other hand, when it comes to rebuilding, Federal money after disasters has encouraged bad behavior. If people and their insurance companies had to shoulder most of the cost of rebuilding their beach homes, instead of government, then they wouldn't rebuild in some instances. And construct to higher standards in others. My opinion, if states and cities, other than where I live, want to pay for foolish behavior, let them have at it. It's none of my business and no skin off my back. But the federal government shouldn't take our tax dollars and spend them on foolishness. And unfortunately it does a lot of that.
Here's a link to an article in one of Toom's favorite newspapers, which I recently subscribed to, written by a professor at Western Carolina University, who directs their program for the study of developed shorelines.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/o...ebuilding.html
Some excerpts,
Hurricane Ian is the latest devastating hurricane to confirm that coastal areas are failing to keep rebuilt or new development out of highly vulnerable areas.
Local emergency managers know all too well which places in their communities should not be built back after a storm. But they are rebuilt, because the federal government and states provide multiple incentives to rebuild rather than to relocate. The assumption is that taxpayers will always be there to back up private investment after even predictable natural hazards.
Mantoloking, N.J. , was a poster child in 2012 for Superstorm Sandy's destructiveness. The barrier island that the borough sits on was ripped in half. Homes were destroyed. Even the areas of greatest destruction were rebuilt. We know it will happen again.
The money for such rebuilding comes largely through the public assistance sections of the 1988 Stafford Act. This legislation created the federal system of emergency response. When the president makes a federal disaster declaration for a county, aid dollars flow in with few strings attached.
Federal and state taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the past four decades pumping up beaches in front of coastal properties in what are known as beach nourishment projects. In Florida alone, almost $3 billion in public funds has been spent just to keep beaches in front of investment homes and oceanfront infrastructure. Studies in Florida have shown that these beach projects increase oceanfront development. Government spending is incentivizing this expansion into danger zones a classic example of moral hazard, in which there is no reason to protect against risk when the government or federally subsidized flood insurance is there to pick up the tab.
I am not callous about storm relief. There are many people who need help in Ian's aftermath, and the first order of business must be ensuring they get that assistance. But a national conversation is long overdue about the dollars we invest in rebuilding coastal resort communities and what we should expect in return. At the moment, taxpayers are getting little back from these investments.
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing the risk of irresponsible development, and we clearly shouldn't be rebuilding areas of known hazard multiple times.
Tiny's question: Do you think the NYT would have published something similar if the storm had hit New Jersey instead of Florida? My guess is no. They'd much prefer, like Tooms above, to take money from Republicans and only redistribute it to Democrats, whose representatives voted for the "American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Bill and especially the Inflation Reduction Act."
-
10-05-22 18:48 #10501
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
I said that I had no idea whether Obama had anything to do with weak employment and GDP growth after the 2008/2009 recession. So you interpret that, and my link to and description of a St. Louis Fed data series, as a "vague suggestion" that Obama was responsible for a decline in labor force participation rate. And any vague criticism of a Democrat is a blatant lie.
I said that the anomalous increase in real median household income and wages and 50 year lows in the unemployment rate before COVID were partly attributable to the changes in corporate taxation in the TCJA and deregulation. I didn't relate that to the Republicans' big tax cuts for the middle class in 2018 (and in fact said there were valid arguments for and against them) or to the Bush tax cuts. You're really having to jump through hoops to try to show that Bush is responsible for the decline in the labor force participation rate when Obama was president. And I don't understand why you're doing that since you also said any suggestion that the labor force participation rate was down under Obama is B.S.
The unemployment rate declined from 4.7% at the start of Trump's term in office to 3.5% in February, 2020, and didn't fall below 4% until May of 2018. I'm not sure where you're coming up with 3.9%.
As to your unemployment chart, I give the Democrats, and Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin in particular, credit for not jacking the corporate tax rate (or other taxes) back up at the tail end of a recession. That was certainly helpful. And will point out that while we're at 3.7% unemployment again, the labor force participation rate is about one percentage point lower than it was in February, 2020. And while only 3.7 million people are looking for full time work, there are 10 million nonfarm job openings. Something's out of whack there. I won't attribute that to Democratic Party policies or the Biden administration, although you're free to take that as a vague criticism of Democrats and therefore a blatant lie.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13100000
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSJOL
-
10-05-22 16:39 #10500
Posts: 4282 F150 lightning's save the day?
Originally Posted by Spidy [View Original Post]
-
10-05-22 16:34 #10499
Posts: 428Not great if you live in California
Originally Posted by Canada [View Original Post]
-
10-05-22 15:04 #10498
Posts: 1604True
Originally Posted by Spidy [View Original Post]
The other knock is the range of the vehicle and that is where your battery technology comes into play.
-
10-05-22 14:04 #10497
Posts: 406EV not the cure
Originally Posted by Spidy [View Original Post]
-
10-05-22 13:43 #10496
Posts: 1604Wow
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
Let's also not mention that California has unique fuel blends that help control smog. After all, that wouldn't have anything to do with price either, would it? Sheesh, the lengths you guys go to dig yourselves into a hole is astounding.
And, since you can't read, Canada said in his post "Why is gas 80 to 100 percent higher in dem run cities? I pointed out that Houston and Tucson (both cities that he used in his rant to prove that gas was cheaper in Republican cities) both had Democratic mayors. I can't help it if his analysis was faulty and I can't help it if you can't read.
-
10-05-22 09:42 #10495
Posts: 1127Are EVs the latest joke?
Originally Posted by ChuchoLoco [View Original Post]
Also, EVs and our foray into larger cleaner forms of energy, is definitely much to the chagrin of the oil and gas companies (domestic and foreign) and will most assuredly, help to loosen their soci-eco grip on us, addressing your question "Who Controls the Price? Will at least going forward.
Granted we'll have to deal with the "controllers of the electricity prices", but at least that's more of domestic ONLY problem.
So my question is, why do you say, "Electric cars are the latest joke?
P.S.: Florida, could have used a few F150 Lightning EVs to help supplement power. Yes?
Electric F-150 Lightnings save the day with power in Kentucky flood...
https://electrek.co/2022/08/06/elect...lood-response/
-
10-05-22 09:20 #10494
Posts: 5471Kamala verses who?
Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1 [View Original Post]
Here is the latest highly regarded poll I've seen for Kamala Harris in a hypothetical head-to-head contest with the two top likely GOP candidates. This was just two months ago. She beat both of them, as did Biden:
Biden and Harris Would Both Beat Either Trump or DeSantis in 2024: Poll.
7/21/22
https://www.newsweek.com/2024-odds-b...santis-1726687
So which of the other Repub Party Superstars do you, Maher and the geniuses at breitbart think will be the greatest threat to another landslide victorious Biden-Harris ticket on your lord and savior's Repub Party ticket in 2024?
Pence?
Cruz?
Gohmert?
Greene?
-
10-05-22 08:19 #10493
Posts: 5471I would have Bothsided this
Obama had at least two shots at defund, dismantle, mock, deride and lie about the international health and disease monitoring agencies and the intel they provide to prevent and, failing that, intelligently respond to emerging potential economy-crippling Pandemics.
But he didn't:
The 2009 influenza pandemic and the Ebola crisis: what are the lessons learnt?
April 27, 2015
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fvl.15.9
Instead, this is what he did a decade before Trump was forced to apply Obama's fast-track vaccination program when his lies could no longer prevent his stock market from crashing into a Mega Bear despite his defunding, dismantling, mockery, denigration, lies, etc on the World Stage trying so hard to prevent it:
Obama's science advisors outline plan for faster pandemic vaccine.
August 19, 2010
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ndemic-vaccine