since Progressives are responsible for most of the crap going 'wrong'
forest management
failures in the inner cities
SoCal on fire
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
since Progressives are responsible for most of the crap going 'wrong'
forest management
failures in the inner cities
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Only the things liberals don't blame on Trump.
Yes: the booming economy and record low unemployment.
:bam:
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
IF people are going to insist on living there they either have to
a) expect that to happen every so often because it has been happening for thousands of years, hence the evolution of the plants to need the fire to re-germinate or
b) do things that keep the fires from happening such as cutting fire breaks and doing controlled (small) burns.
a) expect that to happen every so often because it has been happening for thousands of years, hence the evolution of the plants to need the fire to re-germinate or
b) do things that keep the fires from happening such as cutting fire breaks and doing controlled (small) burns.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Does this dispute anything I provided you. You asked and I provided. Can you refute it?
It's a long-standing and known fact that environmentalists have controlled the forestation of that region in the interest of protecting certain species of birds. We're seeing the results of this. Massive forest fires every year, several times a year. Is there some coincidence that it's this region of the country every time? If they would allow foresters and loggers to go in and clear out the trees and brush that are the fuel for these fires, the impact would be far worse. And, as I mentioned, the efforts of environmentalists are having the opposite effect that they attempt to achieve.
I am all for doing what we can to protect the domains of protected species. Much of what's gone into their plight is man's encroachment into their territories. But when policy results in worse conditions, it's time to reevaluate what we're doing. On the other hand... if the people of CA continue to elect people that pander to these environmentalists, then they can just keep getting what's coming to them. More wild fires, more displacement of threatened species, more trees and forests, more lost homes, and more lost lives.
A tool to reduce fuel load are controlled burns performed on low wind days and with crews in place to keep it within bounds. But those burns create smoke, smoke which obscures the pristine mountain views coastal liberals moved to enjoy. Oh, it also upsets the mountain lions and the spotted owl, and we can't have that.
truby20
Fighting like a girl
Several good points in the article you gave, I agree that areas are being built up in central California that honestly shouldn't have homes. Same is true in many flood plains and coastal towns, but what is the solution there? More federal ownership of land? Should we not give people money to rebuild? I don't know, but I think people, at minimum for their sanity, should live in areas with few natural disaster risks. We're a big country and a lot of areas are fairly safe from the elements.
I also agree that above ground power lines are a huge risk, but the market is fixing that, PG&E is getting destroyed as far as its stock value. Companies will reduce that risk to limit their liability.
truby20
Fighting like a girl
Clinton gave us a balanced budged and the greatest economy in a generation, Obama turned around the disaster from George W.
We are not even 2 years into our lovely Trump economy. You guys own this train wreck, do you know anyone who works with foreign traders? Like a single person who works on the import side of things? Do you have any idea what these Tariffs are doing? I find it shocking that you don't have friends that work at the ports, like Baltimore (one of the busiest ports on the east coast). They call it the "Trump Tax", it is killing import/exports.
The market is waking up, the S&P will be lucky to be flat for the year. And don't blame the Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell was Trump's pick, he got rid of Yellen which honestly was probably one of the most intelligent people to ever hold the post.
The inertia of the economy is winding down, before it was supposed to, the tax cuts were WAY too early, we could have used this boost next year.
You guys lost over 35 seats with a great economy....you're not stupid, you know exactly what's on the horizon, your last president did this to us too.
Right that is why Obummer was giving speeches - we cannot do any better than 2%
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus October 31st, 2007
So why do they say he had a surplus?
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
[see chart at the article]
Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.
When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.
Last edited:
Terrible.
I do find it interesting though that the home was destroyed, but very close to the ruins are trees with leafs and needles still hanging.
Salmon
Well-Known Member
Uh...no.
#notalaughingmatter
Be Specific ... HOW :shrug:
Since The Planet is in a long treading Global Cooling Phase [or is NASA Lying] because of reduced sun spot activity resulting in cooler ocean temps and thereby reduced Global CO2
oceans absorb CO2 when the cool Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
Con: Climate change isn't causing California wildfires - blame lies with bad forest management
yeah you are ...... with your Progressive Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and Unfounded OPINION