brenthutch

I shoud have made clear that I ment that some of Obama's regulations probably have some merit. With regard to the debt you are confusing deficit with debt. You should bone up on the basics before you pop off with the PAs.

1. That is just shorthand, I'm sure somewhere in the tens of thousands of pages of regulations there are a few that make sense 2. The most anemic recovery in the modern era and he doubled our debt to do it 3. It depends on how it is done. Repealing Obamacare would cost nothing, in fact it would save billions. Replacing Obamacare is a different kettle of fish.

Obviously you are still hobbled by those goblins.

I don't hate Obama. I just think his policies are misguided; damaging our economy and costing citizens hundreds of billions of dollars.

Hi jerry, I'm not advocating the rollback of all regulations, just Obama's. I realize this is very confusing for some, but that would not mean going back to the 19th century, just the beginning of the 21st. No burning rivers, no Love Canal, no ozone holes, no acid rain nor any of the other hobgoblins that populate the imaginations of many on this thread.

I agree with you tha coal done wrong is very bad.(ask China) Can you agree with me that coal done right can work. Or is coal evil and beyond redemption?

It's not in the list of the top 100 polluters in the USA. Consider yourself lucky. Others - not so much. It's good of you to be so empathic - NOT. At the time of the review we had a coal fired power plant right in the middle of town. http://onwardstate.com/2015/05/29/state-college-ranked-best-town-in-pennsylvania-14th-in-the-nation/

I knew they were working on that, I was unaware they had made the switch. It kind of makes my point though. Other than cheaper energy for the university, there is no discernible difference.

I live four miles from a coal fired power plant, it is located on the campus at Penn State in the middle of the town, I have two children who were born in a hospital just three miles from the plant. Listening to you guys my kids should have three eyes and a tail, I should be on oxygen therapy and my wife would have to wipe off a half inch of soot from her Mercedes every morning! Well we don't. You catastrophists need to relax a bit.

My comment about the market was about how companies decide to allocate capital, not about pollution. With regard to mercury, I fail to see an urgent need for a 90% reduction from current levels. The jobs that will be lost are real, the increase in utility prices are real. Real pain for real people, with no discernible benefit, again disproportionately hurting the poor.

There you go again. I've had enough for now. I'll just let this vague statement of yours stand as it pretty much shows you don't have a real answer. I'm not providing an answer, I am asking a question. Why does the EPA not ban CFLs?

I know you want that to be true, I know that you really really really NEED that to be true but alas it is not.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/ The bigger picture

Show me.

Since you are so concerned about cost benefit analysis, let's see the one you did. EPA does them and reports them all the time. It's what they do. I got your cost-benefit analysis right here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y You just want to bitch about how much you hate the EPA. Are you a woman? No but clearly you are a sexist. I'm sorry if you can not keep up with a wide ranging, dynamic and multifaceted discussion. I provided the Gina McCarthy testimony as an example of how the current EPA views a cost-benefit analysis. With regard to mercury, if it was so dangerous, why doesn't the EPA ban CFLs?

Since you are so concerned about cost benefit analysis, let's see the one you did. EPA does them and reports them all the time. It's what they do. I got your cost-benefit analysis right here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y

It's a little thing I call a cost-benefit analysis. If we are so concerned with mercury, why don't we ban CFLs?

Less than one percent. Anyway, If the EPA were intellectually consistent the would ban CFLs.

No you are wrong, by focusing on mercury the EPA was targeting coal. US mercury emissions are less than 1% of global total. 70% of mercury emissions are from natural sources. High cost and ZERO benefit. It is ideologically based policy.

Getting back to the topic of the OP, Rex Tillerson's Senate hearing is scheduled on the same day as Trump's news conference. Democrats go glug glug glug as Trump sucks up all of the oxygen and dominates the news cycle.

I'm sure you can fine an exemption, but that IS largely how it works.

I have no problem with companies allocating capital as they seem fit. If it works they will be rewarded if it fails they will be punished, by the market; that is how capitalism works. I take issue with bureaucrats in Washington DC picking winners and losers.

Rainbows and unicorn farts are best left to academia, as they fall far short in the real world. "hy·per·bo·le noun exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. " That was mockery, not hyperbole. Obviously you were not an English professor.

And you again admit it's simply a preference on your part. That's no basis for setting national policy. I would say that reality is a pretty good starting place for setting national policy.

I did. Making more money still doesn't justify poisoning the population and desecrating the planet. hy·per·bo·le noun exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.