Obama refuses to accept 2012 election results

[Magox]

In the broad sense, is it not an economic theory which states that investing money in companies (typically by giving them tax breaks) is the best way to stimulate the economy? So, giving billions upon trillions to the automakers and wall street bankers is not investing government money into corporations? With the idea that it would stabilize their businesses and allow them to prosper so we could all prosper in return?

That's still not "trickle down economics". "Trickle down economics" is about people and corporations keeping more of their own money that they EARNED, not about government handouts. We need to stop this misinformation, lowering tax rates is NOT a government handout.

 

A properly delivered tax cut does increase wealth for the overall population, I believe any sensible person understands this. That is what "trickle down economics" is about. By the looks of your post, you are one of the many people that believes the caricature that has been created by opponents of the left of supply side economics. Which is the government gives money to the upper income earners that leads to a further erosion of wealth in the lower-middle class folks.

 

It's a partisan nonsensical argument.

 

I am going to let you guys in on a little secret. The main reason why people from the lower to middle class are not advancing as quickly as we'd like to see is.....

 

Wait for it....

 

 

 

Technology and Globalization.

 

 

 

Which there really isn't much you can do about it. So in order for people from the lower to middle class to advance themselves they will need some internal drive to get them to higher economic situation, if that is what it is they are looking for.

 

Speaking for myself, I came from straight up middle class, father was in the marine corps, I didn't receive jack **** other than some moral support from my parents and I now have my own biz, work 9 months out of the year, make my own hours, I'm in the top 5% of income earners and I'm 36 years old. If I can do it, then so can others.... So please spare me the BS people that the cards are stacked against those who dont have. Just about anyone can succeed financially (if that is what they want) if they have the drive to do it.

 

To elaborate a little further in why "trickle down economics" and it's unpopularity with not just the partisan putzes but also with others as well is very simple. Most people don't have that drive to get them to a higher financial level, most people are complacent, most people are satisfied enough with their own lives to continue the status quo. This is the truth.

 

So, the easiest way for people to blame their economic woes is to blame others. So of course if there is economic system that includes tax cuts for everyone including the wealthy and it goes against the political opponents of supply side economics who rather have higher tax codes to pay for their programs, then its obvious that whenever things do start to look worse from a macro economic POV, (which would have NOTHING to do with the tax code) the caricatures are created and blaming the rich is a very easy target that works with most people. Of course, either those who lack that drive or have an agenda or just is a partisan putz that believes anything their masters tell them fall for this trap.

 

People just need to educate themselves. In this case, "trickle down economics" is an across the board tax cut for everyone including businesses. It's not what your political masters tell you, which is its a government handout for the rich at your expense. That is 100% factually untrue. Once again, "trickle down economics" is an ACROSS THE BOARD tax cut for everyone.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

So please spare me the BS people that the cards are stacked against those who dont have. Just about anyone can succeed financially (if that is what they want) if they have the drive to do it.

Good for you. Most people aren't as lucky as you. [/automated liberal response to this logic]

[ExiledInIllinois]

Good for you. Most Some people aren't as lucky as you. [/automated liberal response to this logic]

 

Fixed. That is much better and holds true.

 

Mag did say [exactly his words]:

 

"Just about..."

 

Do you really want to get into a debate about the words "most" and "some?"

[Buftex]

My point was very simple. The fact that you were unable to grasp it speaks more loudly than anything else.

 

One last time. Slower, for the progressives on the board.

 

Being critical of the tea party for their lack of a collective stance on issues is stupid because you're being critical of something you can not even accurately define.

 

Also please note; comments from Tom don't empower me any more than comments from Exiled empower you. Unless they do, in which case, it sucks to be you.

 

 

So, essentially, the tea party movement, according to you, is the equivialant of the "anyone but Bush" movement that you are so fond of...great! It worked in 2008, but is that what you really want?

[IDBillzFan]

So, essentially, the tea party movement, according to you, is the equivialant of the "anyone but Bush" movement that you are so fond of...great! It worked in 2008, but is that what you really want?

 

And you accuse me of "just flailing away."

 

In what world does your comment above even remotely have anything to do with the comment I made about your criticism of the tea party folks? WTF are you even talking about?

[Dan]

Amazing you see no difference between not taking and giving.

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

That's still not "trickle down economics". "Trickle down economics" is about people and corporations keeping more of their own money that they EARNED, not about government handouts. We need to stop this misinformation, lowering tax rates is NOT a government handout.

 

A properly delivered tax cut does increase wealth for the overall population, I believe any sensible person understands this. That is what "trickle down economics" is about. By the looks of your post, you are one of the many people that believes the caricature that has been created by opponents of the left of supply side economics. Which is the government gives money to the upper income earners that leads to a further erosion of wealth in the lower-middle class folks.

 

It's a partisan nonsensical argument.

 

I am going to let you guys in on a little secret. The main reason why people from the lower to middle class are not advancing as quickly as we'd like to see is.....

 

Wait for it....

 

Technology and Globalization.

 

Which there really isn't much you can do about it. So in order for people from the lower to middle class to advance themselves they will need some internal drive to get them to higher economic situation, if that is what it is they are looking for.

 

Speaking for myself, I came from straight up middle class, father was in the marine corps, I didn't receive jack **** other than some moral support from my parents and I now have my own biz, work 9 months out of the year, make my own hours, I'm in the top 5% of income earners and I'm 36 years old. If I can do it, then so can others.... So please spare me the BS people that the cards are stacked against those who dont have. Just about anyone can succeed financially (if that is what they want) if they have the drive to do it.

 

To elaborate a little further in why "trickle down economics" and it's unpopularity with not just the partisan putzes but also with others as well is very simple. Most people don't have that drive to get them to a higher financial level, most people are complacent, most people are satisfied enough with their own lives to continue the status quo. This is the truth.

 

So, the easiest way for people to blame their economic woes is to blame others. So of course if there is economic system that includes tax cuts for everyone including the wealthy and it goes against the political opponents of supply side economics who rather have higher tax codes to pay for their programs, then its obvious that whenever things do start to look worse from a macro economic POV, (which would have NOTHING to do with the tax code) the caricatures are created and blaming the rich is a very easy target that works with most people. Of course, either those who lack that drive or have an agenda or just is a partisan putz that believes anything their masters tell them fall for this trap.

 

People just need to educate themselves. In this case, "trickle down economics" is an across the board tax cut for everyone including businesses. It's not what your political masters tell you, which is its a government handout for the rich at your expense. That is 100% factually untrue. Once again, "trickle down economics" is an ACROSS THE BOARD tax cut for everyone.

I think you're assuming too much about my statement. First, let's set things straight a little. Are you saying that there's a difference between the government giving large corporations trillions of dollars in tax breaks and them getting trillions of dollars in one lump sum? I understand that the trickle down theory generally refers to tax breaks, hence; I used the phrase, in the the broad sense. But, isn't a one time lump sum, equivalent to giving them tax breaks over the course of a decade or more? We didn't have a decade or more; the hope is/was that it would speed up the process.

 

Trickle down economics is not and never was about an "across the board" tax cut for everyone. That's why they call it trickle down and not trickle up or trickle all around. The idea is you give tax breaks and benefits and otherwise help companies grow. They will, in turn, produce more, hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will then have more money to spend in the economy. That is the trickle down theory in a nutshell. But, no where in the theory is there a call for giving tax cuts to poor or middle class individuals. A politician may do that in addition to a Capital Gains cut (for ex), but that's a separate issue from applying trick down theories.

 

And please, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that all corporations are bad and that we should raise all corporate tax rates. I'm not suggesting that all my woes are to blame on anyone. I'm just suggesting that we've rarely given corporate America as much immediate money as we just did; and they're not hiring, they're not producing more, and they're not raising salaries. Now, perhaps there's many reasons such as technology and globalization that are responsible. But, that doesn't change the fact that the economy is still quite sluggish compared to the injection the "drivers" of that economy just got. And now we have individuals complaining, wanting to know where the jobs are. Well... as you just said they're over seas and lost to technology. But, that's hardly the sole fault of the President or any politician. So, to talk about electing a politician on the grounds that he/she can bring those jobs back is falling into a trap (my original point).

[Magox]

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

 

You really don't see a difference? Well, thats the problem. Unless you had no idea of what he was talking about, you believe that the government is entitled to earned monies from both individuals and corporations, regardless of the existing tax rate. Which is true, but that's the crux, to what extent? Sorry, US corporations have the second highest tax rates in the world. You want a more competitive environment, then you lower the corporate tax rate.

 

I think you're assuming too much about my statement. First, let's set things straight a little. Are you saying that there's a difference between the government giving large corporations trillions of dollars in tax breaks and them getting trillions of dollars in one lump sum? I understand that the trickle down theory generally refers to tax breaks, hence; I used the phrase, in the the broad sense. But, isn't a one time lump sum, equivalent to giving them tax breaks over the course of a decade or more? We didn't have a decade or more; the hope is/was that it would speed up the process.

 

Trickle down economics is not and never was about an "across the board" tax cut for everyone. That's why they call it trickle down and not trickle up or trickle all around. The idea is you give tax breaks and benefits and otherwise help companies grow. They will, in turn, produce more, hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will then have more money to spend in the economy. That is the trickle down theory in a nutshell. But, no where in the theory is there a call for giving tax cuts to poor or middle class individuals. A politician may do that in addition to a Capital Gains cut (for ex), but that's a separate issue from applying trick down theories.

 

And please, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that all corporations are bad and that we should raise all corporate tax rates. I'm not suggesting that all my woes are to blame on anyone. I'm just suggesting that we've rarely given corporate America as much immediate money as we just did; and they're not hiring, they're not producing more, and they're not raising salaries. Now, perhaps there's many reasons such as technology and globalization that are responsible. But, that doesn't change the fact that the economy is still quite sluggish compared to the injection the "drivers" of that economy just got. And now we have individuals complaining, wanting to know where the jobs are. Well... as you just said they're over seas and lost to technology. But, that's hardly the sole fault of the President or any politician. So, to talk about electing a politician on the grounds that he/she can bring those jobs back is falling into a trap (my original point).

First we have to get away with this word "giving". Lets set the record straight here, The U.S has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, the more appropriate word is allowing corporations to keep more of the money they earned. That is factually more true than your characterization.

 

Second, Yes there is a huge difference. The government providing money to the banks, insurers and auto companies was a government bailout/gaurantee/handout. Allowing corporations to keep more of their earned money isn't the same whatsoever, sorry Dan, that is about as simple as I can make it, if you dont understand the difference than I can't help you any further regarding this portion of our discussion. Not the same at all.

 

 

Second, yes, "trickle down economics" has always been about an across the board tax cut for all businesses and corporations. Some of these policies are just for businesses some are for individual tax rates, but in either case always across the board.

 

The Bush tax cuts, guess what? They were for everyone. Reagans tax cuts, take another guess. Reagans was a 25% across the board cut for everyone.

 

Did you know that? It wasn't a tax cut just for the "rich" it was for everyone in both cases. Sorry Dan, if you are gonna argue with me regarding this topic you are going to have to bring up facts to support your case.

 

 

And I call your investopedia for my full wikipedia flush

 

 

"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms of political rhetoric that refer to the policy of providing across the board tax cuts or benefits to businesses, such as tax breaks, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Magox

[Rob's House]

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

 

I think you're assuming too much about my statement. First, let's set things straight a little. Are you saying that there's a difference between the government giving large corporations trillions of dollars in tax breaks and them getting trillions of dollars in one lump sum? I understand that the trickle down theory generally refers to tax breaks, hence; I used the phrase, in the the broad sense. But, isn't a one time lump sum, equivalent to giving them tax breaks over the course of a decade or more? We didn't have a decade or more; the hope is/was that it would speed up the process.

 

Trickle down economics is not and never was about an "across the board" tax cut for everyone. That's why they call it trickle down and not trickle up or trickle all around. The idea is you give tax breaks and benefits and otherwise help companies grow. They will, in turn, produce more, hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will then have more money to spend in the economy. That is the trickle down theory in a nutshell. But, no where in the theory is there a call for giving tax cuts to poor or middle class individuals. A politician may do that in addition to a Capital Gains cut (for ex), but that's a separate issue from applying trick down theories.

 

And please, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that all corporations are bad and that we should raise all corporate tax rates. I'm not suggesting that all my woes are to blame on anyone. I'm just suggesting that we've rarely given corporate America as much immediate money as we just did; and they're not hiring, they're not producing more, and they're not raising salaries. Now, perhaps there's many reasons such as technology and globalization that are responsible. But, that doesn't change the fact that the economy is still quite sluggish compared to the injection the "drivers" of that economy just got. And now we have individuals complaining, wanting to know where the jobs are. Well... as you just said they're over seas and lost to technology. But, that's hardly the sole fault of the President or any politician. So, to talk about electing a politician on the grounds that he/she can bring those jobs back is falling into a trap (my original point).

There are a few problems with your description. The basic idea behind supply-side economic theory ("trickle down" is a description of the way capital flows in free market economies) was based on an idea that if you lowered tax rates (which were over 70% on the top brackets) that you would increase capital in the markets as well as incentives to produce.

 

Lowering tax rates provides for predictable incentives to expand and produce. Giving a lump sum up front, with a virtual mine field of uncertainty going forward gives the company an incentive to keep it close to the vest and hang on to their capital until they see calmer seas in the distance.

[DC Tom]

Also please note; comments from Tom don't empower me any more than comments from Exiled empower you. Unless they do, in which case, it sucks to be you.

 

I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that I empower anyone. That's just !@#$ing scary. I don't even empower myself...just ask my wife.

[Dan]

First we have to get away with this word "giving". Lets set the record straight here, The U.S has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, the more appropriate word is allowing corporations to keep more of the money they earned. That is factually more true than your characterization.

 

Second, Yes there is a huge difference. The government providing money to the banks, insurers and auto companies was a government bailout/gaurantee/handout. Allowing corporations to keep more of their earned money isn't the same whatsoever, sorry Dan, that is about as simple as I can make it, if you dont understand the difference than I can't help you any further regarding this portion of our discussion. Not the same at all.

 

Second, yes, "trickle down economics" has always been about an across the board tax cut for all businesses and corporations. Some of these policies are just for businesses some are for individual tax rates, but in either case always across the board.

 

The Bush tax cuts, guess what? They were for everyone. Reagans tax cuts, take another guess. Reagans was a 25% across the board cut for everyone.

 

Did you know that? It wasn't a tax cut just for the "rich" it was for everyone in both cases. Sorry Dan, if you are gonna argue with me regarding this topic you are going to have to bring up facts to support your case.

 

And I call your investopedia for my full wikipedia flush

First of all, my comment to JiA was in reference to: I couldn't ascertain who was doing the taking, giving, not taking or whatever from his quick response. My brain couldn't make the connections to make a coherent response to his one liner. That's all. I meant no dig by it.

 

OK. I'm not arguing, in any way, for more corporate taxes. I'm not suggesting that we tax the rich more. So, there's really no need to keep bringing that back up. I signed over 40 tax returns last spring.. believe I know how much corporate taxes are.

 

What you're suggesting is that giving the money via a one time lump sum is not the same as giving tax breaks over a multitude of years. I just don't buy it. The whole idea behind the tax breaks is to put more money back into the corporations so they'll re-invest, hire and otherwise put that money back into the economy. The bailouts did exactly that... only it occurred all at once. So, once again, in the broad sense, the idea is the same. Give the corporations, the driver's of the economy, more of their money back and they'll .. drive the economy. In the mean time... the Bush tax cuts are still in place, the capital gains tax has not increased and all the other bad things have not yet happened. So, these businesses should have the capital and the means to begin hiring again, giving raises, developing new things, etc. But, they aren't. So, now we want to elect a new set of politicians on the premise that they'll be the ones to get these corporations hiring again rather than taking their business overseas or using new technologies to cut their workforce and increase their profits.

 

It's hard to imagine we can give enough tax breaks to amount to trillions of dollars in wall street's pocket in the next year or two. But, I guess we should try because apparently the first trillion wasn't enough to get them hiring again.

 

Yes, Reagan cut taxes for everyone. Once. But, he also raised alot of taxes while he was President as well. Furthermore, as I stated, across the board cuts can occur, but that's separate from the trickle down idea. From the very Wiki flush: "A major feature of these [Reagan's] policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes." That's the trickle down theory. Again, how is giving some bum making $35,000/yr going to trickle down to anyone? He's pretty much down there already.

[Joe Miner]

First of all, my comment to JiA was in reference to: I couldn't ascertain who was doing the taking, giving, not taking or whatever from his quick response. My brain couldn't make the connections to make a coherent response to his one liner. That's all. I meant no dig by it.

 

OK. I'm not arguing, in any way, for more corporate taxes. I'm not suggesting that we tax the rich more. So, there's really no need to keep bringing that back up. I signed over 40 tax returns last spring.. believe I know how much corporate taxes are.

 

What you're suggesting is that giving the money via a one time lump sum is not the same as giving tax breaks over a multitude of years. I just don't buy it. The whole idea behind the tax breaks is to put more money back into the corporations so they'll re-invest, hire and otherwise put that money back into the economy. The bailouts did exactly that... only it occurred all at once. So, once again, in the broad sense, the idea is the same. Give the corporations, the driver's of the economy, more of their money back and they'll .. drive the economy. In the mean time... the Bush tax cuts are still in place, the capital gains tax has not increased and all the other bad things have not yet happened. So, these businesses should have the capital and the means to begin hiring again, giving raises, developing new things, etc. But, they aren't. So, now we want to elect a new set of politicians on the premise that they'll be the ones to get these corporations hiring again rather than taking their business overseas or using new technologies to cut their workforce and increase their profits.

 

It's hard to imagine we can give enough tax breaks to amount to trillions of dollars in wall street's pocket in the next year or two. But, I guess we should try because apparently the first trillion wasn't enough to get them hiring again.

 

Yes, Reagan cut taxes for everyone. Once. But, he also raised alot of taxes while he was President as well. Furthermore, as I stated, across the board cuts can occur, but that's separate from the trickle down idea. From the very Wiki flush: "A major feature of these [Reagan's] policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes." That's the trickle down theory. Again, how is giving some bum making $35,000/yr going to trickle down to anyone? He's pretty much down there already.

 

You might want to first ask yourself why businesses spend money.

 

Take that answer and apply it to the next question to help you answer.

 

Why would a business want to increase its workforce?

 

When you answer that, write it down, and try to apply it to the following questions.

 

Why would a business not want to increase their workforce?

 

Why would a business think that consequence (from your answer to the previous question) would be a possibility?

 

 

These questions have been discussed tirelessly in this forum, so feel free to search around to get your answers.

This should get you started to understanding why business aren't hiring like you want.

[Magox]

First of all, my comment to JiA was in reference to: I couldn't ascertain who was doing the taking, giving, not taking or whatever from his quick response. My brain couldn't make the connections to make a coherent response to his one liner. That's all. I meant no dig by it.

 

OK. I'm not arguing, in any way, for more corporate taxes. I'm not suggesting that we tax the rich more. So, there's really no need to keep bringing that back up. I signed over 40 tax returns last spring.. believe I know how much corporate taxes are.

 

What you're suggesting is that giving the money via a one time lump sum is not the same as giving tax breaks over a multitude of years. I just don't buy it. The whole idea behind the tax breaks is to put more money back into the corporations so they'll re-invest, hire and otherwise put that money back into the economy. The bailouts did exactly that... only it occurred all at once. So, once again, in the broad sense, the idea is the same. Give the corporations, the driver's of the economy, more of their money back and they'll .. drive the economy. In the mean time... the Bush tax cuts are still in place, the capital gains tax has not increased and all the other bad things have not yet happened. So, these businesses should have the capital and the means to begin hiring again, giving raises, developing new things, etc. But, they aren't. So, now we want to elect a new set of politicians on the premise that they'll be the ones to get these corporations hiring again rather than taking their business overseas or using new technologies to cut their workforce and increase their profits.

 

It's hard to imagine we can give enough tax breaks to amount to trillions of dollars in wall street's pocket in the next year or two. But, I guess we should try because apparently the first trillion wasn't enough to get them hiring again.

 

Yes, Reagan cut taxes for everyone. Once. But, he also raised alot of taxes while he was President as well. Furthermore, as I stated, across the board cuts can occur, but that's separate from the trickle down idea. From the very Wiki flush: "A major feature of these [Reagan's] policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes." That's the trickle down theory. Again, how is giving some bum making $35,000/yr going to trickle down to anyone? He's pretty much down there already.

Corporations for the most part aren't hiring for a bevy of reasons, one there isn't the domestic demand for goods and services that we had seen before. Two, technology is improving and there really isnt a need from many companies to hire more workers, specially considering that the bottom line and worker productiviy is all improving, and I dont blame them. Also, there is still quite a bit of fear out there, and justifiably so, the unknowns of the possible outcomes of our National debt and future inflation are great, and some companies are just fine where they are right now.

 

The best solution to these problems is INNOVATION and selling goods and services to emerging markets. In order to do this, lowering the corporate tax code would be a good solution. One, it makes us more competitive to compete with other countries for access into selling goods into these countries, and two, lowering the corporate tax code allows corporations to have more money to innovate. Less money = less innovation.

 

 

Another factor that is hurting the job market is nonsensical regulation. I understand that when sh1t occurs that our highly esteemed elected leaders need to act as if they care and give the appearance of doing something. Most of these populist measures are nonsensical and do more harm than good. The Oil drilling issuance of permits is one good example and so is the Durbin amendment which I brought up to this board about a year ago when no one was talking about it. Now Durbin feels the need to criticize the WSJ through the Chicago Tribune and makes mentions of them 23 times in his piece and then equates the name WALL STREET Journal and WALL STREET are synonymous with one another because they both have the word WALL STREET in it.

 

Talk about preying on the minds of the weak.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Magox

[Dan]

Corporations for the most part aren't hiring for a bevy of reasons, one there isn't the domestic demand for goods and services that we had seen before. Two, technology is improving and there really isnt a need from many companies to hire more workers, specially considering that the bottom line and worker productiviy is all improving, and I dont blame them. Also, there is still quite a bit of fear out there, and justifiably so, the unknowns of the possible outcomes of our National debt and future inflation are great, and some companies are just fine where they are right now.

 

The best solution to these problems is INNOVATION and selling goods and services to emerging markets. In order to do this, lowering the corporate tax code would be a good solution. One, it makes us more competitive to compete with other countries for access into selling goods into these countries, and two, lowering the corporate tax code allows corporations to have more money to innovate. Less money = less innovation.

 

Another factor that is hurting the job market is nonsensical regulation. I understand that when sh1t occurs that our highly esteemed elected leaders need to act as if they care and give the appearance of doing something. Most of these populist measures are nonsensical and do more harm than good. The Oil drilling issuance of permits is one good example and so is the Durbin amendment which I brought up to this board about a year ago when no one was talking about it. Now Durbin feels the need to criticize the WSJ through the Chicago Tribune and makes mentions of them 23 times in his piece and then equates the name WALL STREET Journal and WALL STREET are synonymous with one another because they both have the word WALL STREET in it.

Talk about preying on the minds of the weak.

I really don't disagree with any of that.

 

And don't get me started on the regulations. The industry of my endeavor is about to face the single largest regulatory oversight ever imposed by the EPA. With any luck the damn Republicans in the House can pass HR872; but I fully expect the damn Democrats in the Senate to stall it. Either way, it's made for one hell of a time trying to stay in business and be profitable. I could go on... but we'd derail this thread more than we already have.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I really don't disagree with any of that.

 

And don't get me started on the regulations. The industry of my endeavor is about to face the single largest regulatory oversight ever imposed by the EPA. With any luck the damn Republicans in the House can pass HR872; but I fully expect the damn Democrats in the Senate to stall it. Either way, it's made for one hell of a time trying to stay in business and be profitable. I could go on... but we'd derail this thread more than we already have.

 

If you mind me asking Dan... What is the indusrty? You can PM me if you don't want it to be public.

[Dan]

If you mind me asking Dan... What is the indusrty? You can PM me if you don't want it to be public.

I don't mind. I work in the mosquito control industry. I manage, oversee, and otherwise get involved in mosquito control programs nationwide, including your backyard (Chicago) and perhaps many of the posters here backyards (expect that dude in Anchorage - I haven't had the pleasure yet to kill stuff in AK ).

 

The regulation I referred to is resultant from a Court ruling that adds CWA regulations (in addition to FIFRA regulations) to pesticide applications; specifically those applications made only for

mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic weed and algae control, aquatic nuisance animal control, and forest canopy pest control in that we'll have to get permits for all applications made on or near waters of the US. Of course, no one knows what near means; furthermore a water of the US is being redefined to include most any puddle of aqueous solution containing hydrogen and oxygen bound in some recognizable form. You may notice that agricultural and general pest control applications aren't covered. Imagine that... the industries that apply less that 1% of all pesticides in the country are being regulated, while Agriculture isn't.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I don't mind. I work in the mosquito control industry. I manage, oversee, and otherwise get involved in mosquito control programs nationwide, including your backyard (Chicago) and perhaps many of the posters here backyards (expect that dude in Anchorage - I haven't had the pleasure yet to kill stuff in AK ).

 

The regulation I referred to is resultant from a Court ruling that adds CWA regulations (in addition to FIFRA regulations) to pesticide applications; specifically those applications made only for

mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic weed and algae control, aquatic nuisance animal control, and forest canopy pest control in that we'll have to get permits for all applications made on or near waters of the US. Of course, no one knows what near means; furthermore a water of the US is being redefined to include most any puddle of aqueous solution containing hydrogen and oxygen bound in some recognizable form. You may notice that agricultural and general pest control applications aren't covered. Imagine that... the industries that apply less that 1% of all pesticides in the country are being regulated, while Agriculture isn't.

 

Thanks! I couldn't remember.. I thought it was pesticides. You were the one who told me what my village was dropping in the storm sewers to control the mosquitos and west nile.

[Dan]

Thanks! I couldn't remember.. I thought it was pesticides. You were the one who told me what my village was dropping in the storm sewers to control the mosquitos and west nile.

That is correct!

[ExiledInIllinois]

That is correct!

 

It has been so damn cold for a long time now... I wonder how that will effect things? Usually this time of the year (here) there is few days in the 60's and even acouple of days that flirt with 70's! This whole week is supposed to be only in the 30's an 40's! I am getting ready for spring!!!

Edited March 28, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois

[Dan]

It has been so damn cold for a long time now... I wonder how that will effect things? Usually this time of the year (here) there is few days in the 60's and even acouple of days that flirt with 70's! This whole week is supposed to be only in the 30's an 40's! I am getting ready for spring!!!

It's been bad. I agree. I'll be in Columbus tomorrow to get things "started" and it's been no warmer there still I gotta start making the rounds. But, the cold won't/shouldn't really affect the bugs too much. Unfortunately for you (fortunately for me) they're well adapted to survive long, cold winters. In fact, all the snow melting (add in the spring rains) and flooding all the river plains will probably lead to a higher than normal crop of spring mosquitoes. So, if I had to bet, when the weather does finally warm.. it'll be pretty bad pretty quick.

[Buftex]

And you accuse me of "just flailing away."

 

In what world does your comment above even remotely have anything to do with the comment I made about your criticism of the tea party folks? WTF are you even talking about?

 

Well, its' because you keep hammering away the same pointless point, and it doesn't mean anything. Accuse me of being too stupid to understand what you are saying, but you aren't really saying anything.

 

You are in a great position I guess. The only way you can define your beliefs (or the Tea Party beliefs) is to say that they can't be described, pinned down, or defined. Everyone can define what the Tea Party "is not". Isn't that convenient? That wears thin after a while. It didn't work for Republicans in 2008...the party of "just say no" became the party "no-way" to voters.

 

You say that Democrats will regret not taking the Tea Party seriously. How can you, when you yourself are saying that there is nothing tangible to define the movement. It is logical, I would say, to assume then, the dissention coming from the Tea Party, indicates that those identifying with the movement are just pissed off, and unhappy with the current government. Fine, I think you will find many who feel that way on both sides of the political spectrum. But if you are going to rail against what is going on, shouldn't you offer a solution? It seems every time a self identified Tea Party candidate opens their mouth, they make their movement look sillier.

 

It is easy, as we have seen for years, to criticize what is going on, but not as easy to come up with solutions. Everybody wants to cut spending...Republicans will cut spending on education before they will interfere with big business. See Pennsylvania right now. Yet, in nearly every poll,in every state, education is the one area that voters do not want to see cuts made. Here, in Texas, the tea party candidates crowed about their victories, but have have already been suffering the backlash for coming to the realization that, maybe, just cutting spending on everything isn't the answer.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Buftex