Cuccinelli Announces Energy Policy Pr...

Cuccinelli Announces Energy Policy Proposal

There are 39 comments on the NBC29 Charlottesville story from May 9, 2013, titled Cuccinelli Announces Energy Policy Proposal. In it, NBC29 Charlottesville reports that:

One day before Republican delegates meet in Richmond for the 2013 Republican Party Convention, Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is laying out another policy proposal.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29 Charlottesville.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Milton Friedman

Bristow, VA

#22 May 17, 2013
It doesn't take a genius to see that Huck and HMMMM are the same person. One good measure of a weak argument is how much interest it garners. In this case, its very weak as the person making the proffer is forced to create a clone to get someone to agree to his horribly flawed premise. The fact that we are 17 trillion dollars in the hole is the big picture here. Wasteful spending of any sort is a luxury we simply cannot afford. Less government is the answer to most any question one can ask.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#23 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to see that Huck and HMMMM are the same person. One good measure of a weak argument is how much interest it garners. In this case, its very weak as the person making the proffer is forced to create a clone to get someone to agree to his horribly flawed premise. The fact that we are 17 trillion dollars in the hole is the big picture here. Wasteful spending of any sort is a luxury we simply cannot afford. Less government is the answer to most any question one can ask.
I'm not hmmmmm
why aren't you railing against the much larger wasteful spending I pointed out in my earlier posts. Corporate welfare knows no bounds and the GOP is a major reason why. They are employees of business, not the people.
the cooch's all-of-the-above energy policy is a facade, and clean coal is a joke
Milton Friedman

Bristow, VA

#24 May 17, 2013
I believe I said "wasteful spending of any sort is a luxury we cannot afford." That would cover ANY WASTEFUL SPENDING. I also seem to recall the President's position on energy is essentially the same as Cuccinelli's. Is the President similarly a fraud?
hondacivic

Charlottesville, VA

#25 May 17, 2013
huck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not hmmmmm
why aren't you railing against the much larger wasteful spending I pointed out in my earlier posts. Corporate welfare knows no bounds and the GOP is a major reason why. They are employees of business, not the people.
the cooch's all-of-the-above energy policy is a facade, and clean coal is a joke
It's the same reason why the GOP hasn't said a word about the CBO saying the deficit is falling faster than expected. You would think they would be having a parade celebrating now after preaching about deficits for years. Truth is they really don't care.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/...
hondacivic

Charlottesville, VA

#26 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
I also seem to recall the President's position on energy is essentially the same as Cuccinelli's.?
The importance of energy for both is the same, but with a major difference between the two. The GOP would love to get rid of EPA totally with no regulations.
Milton Friedman

Bristow, VA

#27 May 17, 2013
hondacivic wrote:
<quoted text>
The importance of energy for both is the same, but with a major difference between the two. The GOP would love to get rid of EPA totally with no regulations.
I agree with doing away with EPA. The necessary regulation could be transferred to DOI or BLM. These duplicate layers of government involvement are incredibly inefficient and should be eliminated. That point aside, I encourage you to check out a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision from last year, EPA v. Sackett. This case is not an isolated incident and is fast becoming representative of what life would be like under an ever increasing government. Need proof? Look no further than the current IRS scandal unfolding right now.
Hmmmmm

Charlottesville, VA

#28 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with doing away with EPA. The necessary regulation could be transferred to DOI or BLM. These duplicate layers of government involvement are incredibly inefficient and should be eliminated. That point aside, I encourage you to check out a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision from last year, EPA v. Sackett. This case is not an isolated incident and is fast becoming representative of what life would be like under an ever increasing government. Need proof? Look no further than the current IRS scandal unfolding right now.
I am not huck. And you are not Milton Friedman. Friedman was a m o r o n, but he was a smart m o r o n. You are just a m o r o n all around.

First, you completely skipped past the actual points of discussion.

Second, you are chalking up the debt to wasteful spending? You must surely mean that stuff we did back in the mid-2000s where we cut taxes and started two wars at the same time. And then saw a huge recession where revenues dove even farther.

You can't just say "wasteful spending" as if it refers to something. It doesn't. It is empty political buzzword that is a lot about emotion and almost not at all about Reason.

So lay it out for me - dissect the whole budget. Identify the wasteful spending. But, if you truly are Mr. Friedman then you will know that in order to show something is "wasteful" you have to produce the full analysis of the activity - the cost and the benefit. Don't forget to include opportunity costs and to compare it to the alternatives.
Milton Friedman

Bristow, VA

#29 May 17, 2013
WOW - if you think Friedman was a moron, you're well outside the mainstream of scholarly economic thought, and probably dealing with psychological issues of projection as well. As for the name calling you resort to, it is simple clear and conclusive evidence of the lack of intellect on your part. I will, however, attempt to educate someone I believe in incapable of cogent thought. Wasteful spending is not a political buzzword, it is simply spending that is wasteful. I attribute some of the debt to wasteful spending, but not all. The budget during the first decade of this century was unbalanced in favor of debt to the tune of 4 trillion. In less than four years we've increased that 4 fold. It doesn't take a genius, so I'll include you for the moment, to figure out this kind of spending is unsustainable. Therefore, spending and revenue must be brought into balance. I think government should be about 20% of what it is in size and budget, ex. military. A flat tax would abrogate the need for the IRS, so that would be a good start. Once people start having to actually pay the tax when they make a transaction, they will demand accountability from those doing the spending. As for truly wasteful spending, let me throw out 3 quick examples: A Department of Education that doesn't have an employee in a classroom; a Department of Energy that produces none; and an EPA that seeks to regulate the very gas we exhale each time we breathe as though it is a hazardous material.
G Luv

Marietta, GA

#30 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
Less government is the answer to most any question one can ask.
Nonsense. Government intervention is reasonable for guiding collective policy where the private sector is too self-interested to work in the national interest. Energy policy fits the bill, as do many of the EPA regulations.
Hmmmmm

Charlottesville, VA

#31 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
WOW - if you think Friedman was a moron, you're well outside the mainstream of scholarly economic thought, and probably dealing with psychological issues of projection as well. As for the name calling you resort to, it is simple clear and conclusive evidence of the lack of intellect on your part. I will, however, attempt to educate someone I believe in incapable of cogent thought. Wasteful spending is not a political buzzword, it is simply spending that is wasteful. I attribute some of the debt to wasteful spending, but not all. The budget during the first decade of this century was unbalanced in favor of debt to the tune of 4 trillion. In less than four years we've increased that 4 fold. It doesn't take a genius, so I'll include you for the moment, to figure out this kind of spending is unsustainable. Therefore, spending and revenue must be brought into balance. I think government should be about 20% of what it is in size and budget, ex. military. A flat tax would abrogate the need for the IRS, so that would be a good start. Once people start having to actually pay the tax when they make a transaction, they will demand accountability from those doing the spending. As for truly wasteful spending, let me throw out 3 quick examples: A Department of Education that doesn't have an employee in a classroom; a Department of Energy that produces none; and an EPA that seeks to regulate the very gas we exhale each time we breathe as though it is a hazardous material.
I happen to think that all of the "more on the right" side, neoliberal, laissez-faire economists are morons. So that includes Friedman and the entire Australian school. It is rotten at its foundation being based on a highly partial and idealized picture of [i]homo economicus[/i].

Its primary purpose in the world is to dress itself up as social science while it justifies and defends clearly insane things - such as incredibly harmful business practices and wild extremes of social inequality both domestically and globally. It is and always has been little more than an ideological weapon of the economically powerful.

On the subject of your own "brilliance" - you cannot dismiss "wasteful spending" as a buzzword while you proclaim that we have lots of it and then just define it as "spending that is wasteful" and then go on to throw out a few "examples" that are - what? Supposed to be obviously wasteful?

And you provide some vague numbers about debt that make it "obvious" that our current situation is unsustainable? I'm not thrilled about it an I'm not even going to defend it. But just making it out to be some easy and obvious fact is silly. The massive deficits we had coming out the depression and into & through WWII were larger - and were followed by our "Leave it to Beaver" heydey of economic boom. Its simply not clear or self-evident that what we have now is either unprecedented or unsustainable.

And by that, don't now assume that I am some sort of Keynesian. Its not as simple as that.

In any case, all you do is common sense BS while you cloak yourself in common sense neoliberal economic theory. So don't try to puff yourself up as the "smart" one in the room that knows all about economics. You know all about economics the religion and that's about it.
Hmmmmm

Charlottesville, VA

#32 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
WOW - if you think Friedman was a moron, you're well outside the mainstream of scholarly economic thought, and probably dealing with psychological issues of projection as well. As for the name calling you resort to, it is simple clear and conclusive evidence of the lack of intellect on your part. I will, however, attempt to educate someone I believe in incapable of cogent thought. Wasteful spending is not a political buzzword, it is simply spending that is wasteful. I attribute some of the debt to wasteful spending, but not all. The budget during the first decade of this century was unbalanced in favor of debt to the tune of 4 trillion. In less than four years we've increased that 4 fold. It doesn't take a genius, so I'll include you for the moment, to figure out this kind of spending is unsustainable. Therefore, spending and revenue must be brought into balance. I think government should be about 20% of what it is in size and budget, ex. military. A flat tax would abrogate the need for the IRS, so that would be a good start. Once people start having to actually pay the tax when they make a transaction, they will demand accountability from those doing the spending. As for truly wasteful spending, let me throw out 3 quick examples: A Department of Education that doesn't have an employee in a classroom; a Department of Energy that produces none; and an EPA that seeks to regulate the very gas we exhale each time we breathe as though it is a hazardous material.
Aside from that Mr. Fried-man my whole involvement in this discussion had to do with pointing out that major federal $$ involvement in economic ventures has been an integral part of our economic history in the US. Ignoring or denying that is just part of the neoliberal myth. It is based on ignorance at best or dishonesty at worst.
Milton Friedman

Bristow, VA

#33 May 17, 2013
Hmmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
I happen to think that all of the "more on the right" side, neoliberal, laissez-faire economists are morons. So that includes Friedman and the entire Australian school. It is rotten at its foundation being based on a highly partial and idealized picture of [i]**** economicus[/i].
Its primary purpose in the world is to dress itself up as social science while it justifies and defends clearly insane things - such as incredibly harmful business practices and wild extremes of social inequality both domestically and globally. It is and always has been little more than an ideological weapon of the economically powerful.
On the subject of your own "brilliance" - you cannot dismiss "wasteful spending" as a buzzword while you proclaim that we have lots of it and then just define it as "spending that is wasteful" and then go on to throw out a few "examples" that are - what? Supposed to be obviously wasteful?
And you provide some vague numbers about debt that make it "obvious" that our current situation is unsustainable? I'm not thrilled about it an I'm not even going to defend it. But just making it out to be some easy and obvious fact is silly. The massive deficits we had coming out the depression and into & through WWII were larger - and were followed by our "Leave it to Beaver" heydey of economic boom. Its simply not clear or self-evident that what we have now is either unprecedented or unsustainable.
And by that, don't now assume that I am some sort of Keynesian. Its not as simple as that.
In any case, all you do is common sense BS while you cloak yourself in common sense neoliberal economic theory. So don't try to puff yourself up as the "smart" one in the room that knows all about economics. You know all about economics the religion and that's about it.
I do happen to have a BA in economics, so I can safely claim some level of knowledge on the topic. My question to you is: since when is common sense BS? If you take in less than you spend, you are certainly a M O R O N, economically speaking. Spending must be brought into balance with revenue in the long run. I view reduced spending as the logical first step. An increase in revenue due the bloated, incredibly inefficient government would likely send us right back into a deep recession at a time when we are only crawling out of one.

Let's look at a simple example of government inefficiency, so simple in fact, that I think even you can understand it: Joe is a janitor at the local high school. Joe pays, by force or law - take your pick - social security taxes to the government. The government pays people to collect those funds and disburse them to eligible seniors and a growing number of bums who claim to be disabled. The salaries for the government "workers" is derived from additional taxes on Joe's income. Let's say the recipient of the government's largess (at Joe's expense) is Marvin. Marvin's bank account is credited each month with his social security benefit, but at the end of the year, Marvin is taxed on the very money he was given by the government which was taken from Joe. So now, Marvin has to send money back to the IRS, who also have employees in need of a taxpayer funded paycheck, once again funded by Joe's hard work. Of course, social security benefits weren't subject to taxation until Bill Clinton came a long. Indeed, FDR specifically wanted this benefit to remain untaxed. But I digress. Since we are told over and over about the alarming number of seniors who live exclusively on social security, how many people at IRS could be done away with by the seniors not having to file tax returns?? How much savings would this be to Joe? Now before you start talking about Joe having to fund the unemployment benefits for the (hopefully) displaced IRS "workers" let me point out that government is not employment generator - anything they pay out must first be taken from someone who earned it.
hondacivic

Charlottesville, VA

#34 May 17, 2013
Hmmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from that Mr. Fried-man my whole involvement in this discussion had to do with pointing out that major federal $$ involvement in economic ventures has been an integral part of our economic history in the US. Ignoring or denying that is just part of the neoliberal myth. It is based on ignorance at best or dishonesty at worst.
That is what conservatives have spent the last few years doing. The tea party has attacked Obama for the same thing that previous republicans have done during recessions. They put Reagan on a pedestal yet ignore the facts as to why the economy turned around during his terms. The goverment has shrank under Obama, yet they claim that the government is "bigger than ever". Under Reagan, the number of government employees increased by 238,000. Same with George W. Bush. It increased by 53,000. Likewise, the number of government employees went down under Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

The government has played a role in helping the economy during recessions with infrastructure. Conservatives spent the first term of Obama attacking him and blocking everything in the attempt to regain the White House. Their primary goal. Then blame him for the economy not recovering fast enough. All of this has been pushed by the tea party. They would love nothing better than to get rid of government period. They elected the likes of Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner, etc. They didn't send them to Washington to better the country. They despise the government and don't want any part of it serving the people.
hondacivic

Charlottesville, VA

#35 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
<quoted text>
I view reduced spending as the logical first step. An increase in revenue due the bloated, incredibly inefficient government would likely send us right back into a deep recession at a time when we are only crawling out of one.
Look at Europe as to why many countries went into a double dip recession. It was because they pulled back spending too much.
Hmmmmm

Charlottesville, VA

#36 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
<quoted text>
I do happen to have a BA in economics, so I can safely claim some level of knowledge on the topic. My question to you is: since when is common sense BS? If you take in less than you spend, you are certainly a M O R O N, economically speaking. Spending must be brought into balance with revenue in the long run. I view reduced spending as the logical first step. An increase in revenue due the bloated, incredibly inefficient government would likely send us right back into a deep recession at a time when we are only crawling out of one.
Let's look at a simple example of government inefficiency, so simple in fact, that I think even you can understand it: Joe is a janitor at the local high school. Joe pays, by force or law - take your pick - social security taxes to the government. The government pays people to collect those funds and disburse them to eligible seniors and a growing number of bums who claim to be disabled. The salaries for the government "workers" is derived from additional taxes on Joe's income. Let's say the recipient of the government's largess (at Joe's expense) is Marvin. Marvin's bank account is credited each month with his social security benefit, but at the end of the year, Marvin is taxed on the very money he was given by the government which was taken from Joe. So now, Marvin has to send money back to the IRS, who also have employees in need of a taxpayer funded paycheck, once again funded by Joe's hard work. Of course, social security benefits weren't subject to taxation until Bill Clinton came a long. Indeed, FDR specifically wanted this benefit to remain untaxed. But I digress. Since we are told over and over about the alarming number of seniors who live exclusively on social security, how many people at IRS could be done away with by the seniors not having to file tax returns?? How much savings would this be to Joe? Now before you start talking about Joe having to fund the unemployment benefits for the (hopefully) displaced IRS "workers" let me point out that government is not employment generator - anything they pay out must first be taken from someone who earned it.
My degree is a couple past a BA in economics & from a different area of social science that knows all about what economists teach but spends more time paying attention to all of those things that economists ignore.

And common sense often produces BS because you do things like that - you build little simplified, fictional stories that are supposed to provide "obvious truths." Meanwhile they provide myths. My daughter was telling me all about her 8th grade civics exam this morning on the way to school. They teach this "religion" by way of kids starting lemonade stands. Your "Joe" story is no different. Trying to understand the dynamics of political economy by nice stories about "sally's lemonade stand" or "Joe's paycheck" is just making fiction and thinking its reality. Your BA in economics is basically about as good as my daughter's 8th grade civics textbook.

And you have still ignored the central point that got me in this discussion to begin with - federal $$ is and always has been all over our economy. It is also silly to think that one can't be sensible and run at a deficit. If you think otherwise, then you're not much of a fan of capitalism - which would be odd for an "economist."

Anyway, I am now past disinterested in having this conversation.
hondacivic

Charlottesville, VA

#37 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
<quoted text>
Now before you start talking about Joe having to fund the unemployment benefits for the (hopefully) displaced IRS "workers" let me point out that government is not employment generator - anything they pay out must first be taken from someone who earned it.
That's not the end of the story. The employee that the government is paying from "Joe's hard earned money" also pays taxes into the system. But that employee also has money to spend. When they spend that money at a store, that creates demand which will help create a job for someone else.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#38 May 17, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
<quoted text>

we are told over and over about the alarming number of seniors who live exclusively on social security, how many people at IRS could be done away with by the seniors not having to file tax returns
thank god the tax rate if progressive
.
those who are scraping by are paying little or no tax, so Marvin need not worry if he's in this category
.
the well off are means tested by the tax, and I propose we stick it to 'em more by denying soc sec after a certain level of wealth
.
rawbeenhood
sez you

Macomb, MI

#39 May 18, 2013
Milton Friedman wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to see that Huck and HMMMM are the same person. One good measure of a weak argument is how much interest it garners. In this case, its very weak as the person making the proffer is forced to create a clone to get someone to agree to his horribly flawed premise. The fact that we are 17 trillion dollars in the hole is the big picture here. Wasteful spending of any sort is a luxury we simply cannot afford. Less government is the answer to most any question one can ask.
AS long as we insist on maintaining our status as a war mongering nation, it won't change.
zeek

Charlottesville, VA

#40 May 18, 2013
Just face the facts idiots aka most of you out there, there is nothing government will be a part of that would help anything but to make them money

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Environment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min Quirky 384,336
News Pricey Molekule Air Purifier Cleans Indoor Poll... May 24 Jayne Marie 1
Fracking: Progress or Poison? (Apr '15) May 24 Into The Night 1,011
News UN: Growing environmental threat from animal-to... May 24 Thinning the Culp... 1
News Pro-nuclear GOP senator urges Tennessee to reje... May 19 Solarman 1
News Lifestyle to blame for rise in asthma cases May 12 NIBarnett 2
News Indonesia takes aim at palm oil after forest fires May 3 xtremes 1
More from around the web