Poll: New lows for Obama, Congress, Climate Change

Poll from Pew Research

Congress’s Priorities — Jobs, Energy

81% say it is very important for Congress to address the job situation over the coming months, reflecting consistent concern among the public about the economy’s large job losses. There is no significant difference across party lines. 67% say it is very important for Congress to address the nation’s energy needs, including 75% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 61% of Republicans. 59% say that addressing immigration policy is very important, with Republicans 20 points more likely to say this than Democrats (69% vs. 49%). Only about a third (32%) says it is very important for Congress to address climate change in the coming months, including 47% of Democrats, 29% of independents and 17% of Republicans. This is consistent with earlier Pew Research surveys that show the public putting a relatively low priority on addressing climate change.
Continued Weak Ratings for Congress

* 13% say Congress is doing an excellent or good job, while 38% say it is doing only fair and 44% rate Congress’s job performance as poor. These ratings are largely unchanged from mid-March, when 17% said Congress was doing an excellent or good job.

* Republicans and independents give Congress equally negative job ratings. Majorities of Republicans (57%) and independents (55%) say Congress does a poor job.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 04:09 | Posted in Measure 37 | 61 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Ron Marquez

    It would have been interesting to see BHO’s priorities listed along side. Climate change and financial regulation would be the top two.

  • valley p

    Well…the stimulus spending and the bailing out of the banks have resulted in a turnaround from jobs being lost to jobs now being gained, so check the box on that one. Can more be done? Yes if we are willing to accept even higher deficits, either due to tax cuts or more spending.

    Energy needs and climate change policy are joined at the hip. Drill baby drill appears to have been smothered in its cradle due to BP’s negligence in the Gulf. A new energy policy that is shaped around climate change is on the way. Box soon to be checked.

    Everyone would like something done on immigration, the trouble is what? Draconian enforcement policies that will rely on racial profiling? Or a comprehensive approach that includes some sort of amnesty for those who have been here for years working and raising families? Without any consensus, its hard to see much good being done. Box will not be checked.

    Financial regulation? All but done. Check the box on that one.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Without any consensus, its hard to see much good being done. Box will not be checked.

      Without consensus?

      I’m not exactly sure where you have been lately but this is about the clearest thing there is consensus on in the entire country. Reactions to the recent AZ law proves that one – Enforce and deport aggressively, prosecute and do not allow hiring or deductability of wages to non verified SS numbers.

      There is as close to national unanimity on that issue as you will ever get in a country.

      Gov. Brewer is probably the most popular politician in the country due to signing the bill.

      As far as racial profiling, please, that one is a non starter. Lets not waste any time on that line of argument as it is a one iteration defeat for anyone making it.

      No consensus? I’m not sure what you are smoking but you might want to check the warning label.

      As far as genuine non consensus – that would be the silly notion that climate change and our energy needs are joined at the hip.

      There is national consensus on that – They are not joined at the hip. In fact they are polar opposites – climate change policy is about punishing energy needs not fulfilling the demand.

      Therefore:

      There will be no climate change bill of any significance this year. I have said it from day one of this administration and Ill repeat it here. With doomsday looming in November for the Dems, the last thing they will do is pass a massive tax increase, which is all climate change is about.

      Best bet? – Dems will pass something regarding offshore oil drilling, slap some fines on for BP, demonize oil companies and call it a day call it a climate bill and go home and pray they aren’t out of a job come November. Believe me – none of these clowns wants to face the economy they have foisted upon us.

      Any idiot can look at the poll numbers on this one – When you have a major oil spill going on in the gulf and most Americans still in support off shore drilling, cap and tax is DOA.

      • valley p

        “I’m not exactly sure where you have been lately”

        Overseas. Trying with little success to communicate with hand gestures to Slavic peoples. I also feel that way with you sometimes.

        “I’m not exactly sure where you have been lately but this is about the clearest thing there is consensus on in the entire country.”

        I don’t think so senior. Yes, majorities in polls are generally supportive of the new Arizona law. But give it a few months and as more stories emerge like the one the other day about an American born citizen of Mexican ancestry being hauled off to jail and held until his wife could dig up his birth certificate, and I think people may have a change of heart.

        “As far as racial profiling, please, that one is a non starter. ”

        Right….and when the same as above happens to a Norwegian-American please let me know okay?

        “There is national consensus on that – They are not joined at the hip. In fact they are polar opposites – climate change policy is about punishing energy needs not fulfilling the demand.”

        Punishing energy needs? I’m not at all sure what that statement means. But clear majorities of Americans in poll after poll say global warming is real and measures should be taken to deal with it. True, the numbers have declined a bit over the past 2 years, and true that this is not their top priority at the moment. But you can’t separate energy policy and global warming.

        “There will be no climate change bill of any significance this year. ”

        We shall see. Of course it depends on how one defines “significant.”

        “Believe me – none of these clowns wants to face the economy they have foisted upon us. ”

        Correction. Its the economy Bush foisted upon us. The Democrats have the responsibility to fix the mess, and whether they can fix enough of it fast enough will determine what happens in November.

        “Any idiot can look at the poll numbers on this one – When you have a major oil spill going on in the gulf and most Americans still in support off shore drilling, cap and tax is DOA. ”

        Cap and tax with most of the money returned directly to citizens however, is not DOA. And that is the proposal by Kerry and Loserman. Its not often politicians get to solve a big problem AND send their constituents a check.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >I don’t think so senior.

          Get real, the point is there is consensus now as there has been for a long time.

          >Right….and when the same as above happens to a Norwegian-American please let me know okay?

          Im not sure how racial profiling of Norwegian Americans supports your argument, but again, if you are going to argue that the AZ law will lead to racial profiling, you will lose in one round.

          I am really trying to help you here, drop that line of argument against the law, it’s a non starter.

          Fair warning.

          >Of course it depends on how one defines “significant.”

          I already did define it, as I have done since day one – no cap and trade this year.

          >Correction. Its the economy Bush foisted upon us.

          Nice try but sorry, the deficit was lower under Bush, employment was higher under Bush.

          >The Democrats have the responsibility to fix the mess,

          Well, looks like not a lot of people think the Dems “fixes” are doing much of anything good.

          And of course this was what most predicted. Raising taxes in a recession is about the worst thing you can do. Frankly every time BO opens his mouth the stock market takes a dive. The best fix the Dems could come up with now would be a roll of duct tape for the guy.

          >Its not often politicians get to solve a big problem AND send their constituents a check.

          Correction – It happens entirely too often. That is the way that Democrats work. The entire MO of the Democratic party has been wealth redistribution and claiming it solves something.

          Cap and tax wont solve much of anything even if it did pass. Most people see that and that’s why it is pretty much dead.

          Frankly the only way cap and tax gets resurrected is if the Dems do a total Kamikaze move, realize they are toast in November and shove it through before they lose power figuring on getting what they can while the gettin’ is good. I wouldn’t put it past them but I don’t think it will be successful even if they try it.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          BTW – Did you ride your bike to go gallivanting around with whatever Slavic people you were visiting? Or did you go the devil may care route and fly there?

          My bet is like most greens of the Al Gore stripe what is good for the rest of us is not good enough for you. I’m guessing a 747, with a car trip to the airport thrown in.

          You know, I bet you didn’t even purchase any carbon offsets for the trip.

          Maybe cap and tax would pass if the people who promoted it actually lived the lifestyle they preach for everyone else?

          Just a strategy thought – you guys could use some right about now.

          • valley p

            “I am really trying to help you here, drop that line of argument against the law, it’s a non starter.”

            Its already started. See example I mentioned. The modification made by the legislature says that race cannot “solely” be used as a basis for suspecting illegal status. You do the math. What other basis will they use? Hair styling? Driving Low Riders and playing Mariachi music? The law is directed at Latin Americans….period. Not illegal Norwegians.

            “Nice try but sorry, the deficit was lower under Bush, employment was higher under Bush. ”

            Right. Bush got out the door after poking a gargantuan hole in the ship of state, but mercifully (for him and us) before the ship actually sunk to the bottom. Ship continues to sink until patched and pumped, but hey…the current lower level of the ship is Obama’s fault. By your way of thinking the national economy was much better under Carter than Reagan. When Carter left office unemployment was 7% and the economy was still growing. Under Reagan unemployment shot up to well over 10% and the economy declined through most of his first 2 years. Even I can admit that Reagan inherited a sinking ship and had to spend time and effort patching and pumping. Same is true today for Obama. Too bad you can’t admit the obvious.

            “Raising taxes in a recession is about the worst thing you can do.”

            OK. What taxes has Obama raised to date other than on cigarettes? I and 90% of Americans got a tax cut 2 months into his presidency. Health bill taxes have not gone into effect yet so have no effect on the economy.

            “Frankly every time BO opens his mouth the stock market takes a dive.

            Inconvenient (for Rupert) fact check. Dow Jones when Bush took office was about 10,500. When he left it was below 8000. Minus 2500 is not so good record wise. As of today it is around 10,200, or nearly back to where it was before Bush, making Obama plus 2200. And Obama has opened his mouth how often over the past year and 5 months? He is averaging 4 points plus a day!

            “The entire MO of the Democratic party has been wealth redistribution and claiming it solves something.”

            Well ok, I’ll go along with that. Democrats “claimed” to have solved old age poverty by passing SSI. Oh…that claim turns out to be true. THey ‘claim” to have insured geezers by passing Medicare. Ooops, also true. And its also a cold hard fact that national economic growth has been much better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones averaged over the past 65 years, so there is a bigger pie to share thanks to us. And if you go back 80 years (including Roosevelt and Hoover) it is no contest at all. So cap and tax and refund fits your pattern, which is why it will be adopted sooner or later. And if patterns hold, the economy will be way better after 8 years of Obama. What is not to like?

            “Cap and tax wont solve much of anything even if it did pass. ”

            Yeah, actually it does “solve” the related problems of carbon emissions, dependency on foreign oil, and multiple problems from burning coal.

            “Or did you go the devil may care route and fly there?”

            I considered riding my bike over but could not find an oxygen tank large enough to facilitate a trans Atlantic crossing. So yes, we flew. Left bike hanging in the barn.

            “I’m guessing a 747, with a car trip to the airport thrown in.”

            I think it was an airbus and it was definitely a cab to the airport. Where I live there is no public transit. I grant you the same travel rights by the way.

            “You know, I bet you didn’t even purchase any carbon offsets for the trip.”

            For once you are 100% right. But don’t let it go to your head. In my defense, much of my life and living amounts to a carbon offset. As just one example I sold nearly 5000 trees from my nursery this year. Now a 10,000 mile round trip flight amounts to something like $40 worth of carbon offsets, which buys 40 seedlings. So as you can see I’m more than covered by my own tree sales. In fact, I’m so covered I think I will plan another trip or 2!

            “Maybe cap and tax would pass if the people who promoted it actually lived the lifestyle they preach for everyone else?”

            Maybe we wouldn’t actually need it if more people lived the lifestyle many of us are already living dude.

            “Just a strategy thought – you guys could use some right about now. ”

            Thanks for the tip. However, with only 41 Senators (0 from Oregon) and 178 Congress people (1 from Oregon), Sarah Palin as your likely presidential candidate and Chris Dudley for governor, you might consider getting your own side better organized before advising us on political strategy.

            By the way, what do you think of Rand Paul? Repeal the Civil Rights and Americans with Disabilities acts? Isn’t that a bit retro even for you? I wonder where he is on the Emancipation Proclamation? I hope someone asks him (if he ever submits to an interview again). Talk about big government interference with private property rights! LOL!

    • C R Moore

      NO ONE SEEMS TO ADDRESS THE BIG ISSUE.SEEMS ALWAYS THERE IS A BLIND SPOT OVER THE EYES
      OF THOSE THAT GET CAUGHT UP IN THE AMNESTY MIND-SET. GRANTED THERE OR MANY ILLEGALS
      HERE NOW. HOWEVER THERE ARE THOUSANDS POURING IN UNOBSTRUCTED FROM BURGEONING
      THAT NUMBER, EVERY NIGHT. IF THAT WAS OIL SPILLING IN THE OCEAN, WE WOULD HAVE FITS.
      MOST LIBERALS DO NOT EVEN SEEM TO KNOW WHAT SECURE BORDERS EVEN MEAN!

  • Bob Tiernan

    *valley p:*

    Drill baby drill appears to have been smothered in its cradle due to BP’s negligence in the Gulf.

    *Bob T:*

    You seem to think that there can be thousands of such wells under water without a
    single leak so long as no one is negligent. Right.

    Anyway, if drill baby drill is smothered in the cradle, does that mean that governments that supposedly care more about the environment (Cuba, Venezuala, Brazil etc) are going to stop underwater drilling?

    By the way, I never did hear your explanation for why SEC OF STATE (not General) George
    Marshall did not vote in that civilian part of his life.

    Bob T
    NE Portland

    • valley p

      “You seem to think that there can be thousands of such wells under water without a
      single leak so long as no one is negligent. Right.”

      Wells are human constructs, not natural features. Since human constructs are subject to human error, the more wells you drill, and the deeper and more inaccessible (to repair) the water the more inevitable these sorts of disasters are. The evidence is that BP chose to shave off safety features to save a few bucks and had inadequate measures in place to deal with a blowout. That is where the negligence lies. They promised us a fail safe operation and failed. And I will bet that by the end of this they will fight paying the bill for what will amount to decades of damage, just like Exxon successfully did.

      “does that mean that governments that supposedly care more about the environment (Cuba, Venezuala, Brazil etc) are going to stop underwater drilling?”

      First, I don’t agree with your premise that these other nations care more about their ecosystems than we care about ours. Quite the contrary. Nigeria has oil leaks on the scale of the one we are dealing with nearly every year. Many courtesy of BP by the way. Second, they will keep on drilling as long as they can make a buck. And they will make a buck as long as the US keeps buying all their oil. Its up to us to reduce our demand for their product. Or we can ruin our own ocean environment by going into ever deeper waters. Our choice.

      “By the way, I never did hear your explanation for why SEC OF STATE (not General) George
      Marshall did not vote in that civilian part of his life. ”

      I think you are confusing me with someone else, but if you want an answer from me then ask a coherent question.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Bob T:*

    You seem to think that there can be thousands of such wells under water without a
    single leak so long as no one is negligent. Right.

    *valley p:*

    Wells are human constructs, not natural features. Since human constructs are subject to human error, the more wells you drill, and the deeper and more inaccessible (to repair) the water the more inevitable these sorts of disasters are. The evidence is that BP chose to shave off safety features to save a few bucks and had inadequate measures in place to deal with a blowout. That is where the negligence lies.

    *Bob T:*

    You correctly point out the inevitable chances of accidents, but failed to address the question about whether or not you’re claiming that these can never happen if everyone involved avoids negligence. Besides, we do not know what the real facts are regarding what BP did or did not do, or what the owners of the rig did or did not do. There’s been far too much blather about these things since day one and some, many, most or all of them may prove to have been distorted in retelling. Many of these things are spread by those who need to make quick hits on one side and to keep the momentum there.

    *valley p:*

    They promised us a fail safe operation and failed. And I will bet that by the end of this they will fight paying the bill for what will amount to decades of damage, just like Exxon successfully did.

    *Bob T:*

    Clearly BP is responsible at least in a sense that it was in charge, and even if they show that they did the best they could even before the accident, they will be held accountable as is the real free enterprise way (unlike your crony capitalism and collectivist schemes) and will be shelling out loads of money. The only hope is that those seeking the money remain responsible themselves and that every dinky little fisherman and surfer doesn’t try to get a million dollars. Interetsing that the left
    hates greed (so they say) but them reveal their greedy natures when they see deep pockets
    and have a cut finger.

    *Bob T:*

    does that mean that governments that supposedly care more about the environment (Cuba, Venezuala, Brazil etc) are going to stop underwater drilling?

    *valley p:*

    First, I don’t agree with your premise that these other nations care more about their ecosystems than we care about ours.

    *Bob T:*

    But golly – they care about the poor, and take land away from the filthy rotten
    rich people, and give ouit free health care to everyone, and hate capitalism,
    and control the media, and have the common folks’ interests at the top of the list.

    These are the people who could mandate, snap their fingers and get solar
    power and wind power like right now. Wha’ happened?

    *valley p:*

    Quite the contrary. Nigeria has oil leaks on the scale of the one we are dealing with nearly every year. Many courtesy of BP by the way.

    *Bob T:*

    Gee, did you see Nigeria on my list? I didn’t.

    *valley p:*

    Second, they will keep on drilling as long as they can make a buck. And they will make a buck as long as the US keeps buying all their oil.

    *Bob T:*

    Oh, here we go again.

    Wonderful Europe is a big oil hog, as is China. Can’t European nations do without and still
    have massive welfare states?

    *valley p:*

    Its up to us to reduce our demand for their product. Or we can ruin our own ocean environment by going into ever deeper waters. Our choice.

    *Bob T:*

    We can drill more in places where such accidents are less likely because the equipment is
    easier to inspect and keep an eye on, as well as repair during a spill. i.e., in shallow
    water and on land. And keep in mind that most oil that has gotten into the ocean has
    come from oil tanker spills and from natural leakage on the ocean floor.

    As for our demand for energy, are having fantasies about solar and wind being
    good enough to replace what we stop using from oil wells, or coal burning?
    After all, if you want a reduction in use without equal replacement, we’ll have
    50% unemployment and become a second world nation. Now, there are many
    on the left who really want us to be like that, but I doubt that you are one of them.

    How about nuclear? Are you in support of keeping that squashed as well, using
    myths taken from movies like The China Syndrome some 35 years ago?

    Bob Tiernan
    NE Portland

    • valley p

      “but failed to address the question about whether or not you’re claiming that these can never happen if everyone involved avoids negligence.”

      I used the words “more inevitable.” I should have just said “inevitable.” History shows that human error *always* occurs in highly technical projects, and the more of these projects out there the more likely that error will happen sooner or later. Put another way, I have no doubt in my mind that if you did an audit of every well operating in the gulf you would find technical errors and negligence at nearly every one of them. Fortunately for us most of these errors don’t amount to much, but what happens is this leads to complacency and then a blow out as certain procedures are overlooked. I feel the same way about nuclear power by the way. The more plants you build and operate the more you increase the odds of a major accident. Its an argument for a more decentralized approach to energy development.A wind turbine failing has only very local consequences.

      “every dinky little fisherman and surfer doesn’t try to get a million dollars.”

      I guess that comment exposes your bias here in favor of large corporations. Mine is more on the side of the dinky fishermen and surfers, though having been down in the Gulf, there is not much in the way of surf most days. So I guess I’ll add pelicans, turtles, and other creatures who unfortunately can’t sue or be compensated at all.

      “These are the people who could mandate, snap their fingers and get solar
      power and wind power like right now. Wha’ happened?”

      You really are a piece of work Bob. Frankly I don’t know what Cuba is doing with respect to energy development. Venezuela is an oil country. Brazil has done more to develop bio fuels than anyone.

      “Gee, did you see Nigeria on my list? ”

      No. Forgive me for assuming your list was only partial and not meant as sum total.

      “Wonderful Europe is a big oil hog, as is China. Can’t European nations do without and still
      have massive welfare states?”

      On a per capita basis Europe consumes about 1/2 the oil we do. China consumes about 1/10th. Europe is doing without, and still improving their energy conservation much faster than we are. And maintaining a more complete welfare state to boot. Have you been there lately?

      “As for our demand for energy, are having fantasies about solar and wind being
      good enough to replace what we stop using from oil wells, or coal burning?
      After all, if you want a reduction in use without equal replacement, we’ll have
      50% unemployment and become a second world nation. Now, there are many
      on the left who really want us to be like that, but I doubt that you are one of them.”

      We disagree. Solar and wind and other alternatives (waves, tides, geothermal, bio fuels) are “good enough”for us to meet most of our electricity and energy needs. Wind alone can easily produce 20% of our national electricity. We can reduce our energy use significantly with virtually no change in living standards simply by using up to date appliances, efficient lighting, better insulation, and driving more efficient vehicles already on the market. 50% unemployment? No, I don’t think that is even a remote possibility. Our politics would not allow for it. Even at 10% for an extended period we will shift parties and policies. Most people would unfortunately choose to trash the planet down to the last tree or songbird before they would accept 50% unemployment.

      “How about nuclear?”

      I have mixed feelings about it. It is hugely risky in that a single big accident can make a huge part of the nation uninhabitable for centuries. We still don’t have a decent way to deal with the waste. It produces a lot of material that I prefer to keep away from bin Laden. And it is very expensive. Can’t really be built without government guarantees and waste handling. But I can live with more nukes as a bridge to the future given the larger problem of climate change.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Bob T:*

    every dinky little fisherman and surfer doesn’t try to get a million dollars.

    *valley p:*

    I guess that comment exposes your bias here in favor of large corporations. Mine is more on the side of the dinky fishermen and surfers

    *Bob T:*

    If that’s how you want to spin it, no one can stop you. Saying that a dinky fisherman (one who, say, makes about $10,000 per year from his catch, or maybe $20,000, or only $5,000) should
    not be able to sue BP for a million bucks because it has deep pockets is not pro-corporation but pro-fairness. Sometimes corporations are right, sometimes they’re wrong, and sometimes the
    little guy is right, and sometimes he’s wrong. By saying that you bias is for the little guy, you are saying that they’d be in the right for trashing a rich family’s house while the family is away on vacation, or that he should be able to get a million dollars from BP for losing out on, say, $50,000 in income over a five year period in the future. I thought you hated greed?

    We’re talking about just compensation here. Not exploitation.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • valley p

      You are over analyzing and over assuming. I’m saying that in a case where a giant corporation has screwed up the lives and livings of others, not the other way around, I place a finger on the scales of justice to weight them a bit towards the dinky fisherman. What that would translate to in a court of law depends on the circumstances, but given the magnitude of this disaster I would guess BP does not have enough money to make things right when you add up all the dinky fishermen, their families, all the cafes and restaurants that will not be able to serve shrimp gumbo, the dead pelicans and turtles, the fouled wetlands and beaches and so on. Plus they will find plenty of ways to limit their liability. And their jury selection process will favor people like yourself.

      By your dismissal of a fisherman, however small his income, by calling him “dinky,” you place your finger on the scale the other way. We were raised differently apparently.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *valley p:*

    I’m saying that in a case where a giant corporation has screwed up the lives and livings of others, not the other way around, I place a finger on the scales of justice to weight them a bit towards the dinky fisherman.

    *Bob T:*

    Again, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a big corporation or a small one — justice is to be determined by the facts and not the depth of pockets of either side.

    *valley p:*

    By your dismissal of a fisherman, however small his income, by calling him “dinky,” you place your finger on the scale the other way.

    *Bob T:*

    No fisherman has been dismissed my me at all. Clearly you fail at reading comprehension. In the scenario I set out in the above exchange, the dinky fisherman gets compensated for his loss of potential business or income, to an amount that is at least equal to what he would have earned without the oil spill. My main point is that neither he nor anyone else in similar circumstances should become a millionaire over this just because the other party has lots of money. Are you saying that he and others should become millionaires over this? That’s not justice. Clearly you were raised differently, i.e. to not respect others and to steal when you can.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • valley p

      “Are you saying that he and others should become millionaires over this? That’s not justice. Clearly you were raised differently, i.e. to not respect others and to steal when you can.”

      Depends on the facts of the case. If a fisherman loses 20 years of income over this, then yes, a million would not be excessive at all.

      Yep, I was raised differently. But no, not to steal. To take the side of the little guy.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Bob T:*

    Are you saying that he and others should become millionaires over this? That’s not justice. Clearly you were raised differently, i.e. to not respect others and to steal when you can.

    *valley p:*

    Depends on the facts of the case.

    *Bob T:*

    A-hah! That rule does cancel out your admitted bias in favor of the little guy in favor of the facts of each individual case, as it should be. I’m glad this has been cleared up.

    *valley p:*

    If a fisherman loses 20 years of income over this, then yes, a million would not be excessive at all.

    *Bob T:*

    Nonsense. No one should get compensated for what he would earn (potentially) for the next 20 years over something like this, any more than early auto manufacturers needed to pay 20 years worth of income to those buggy-whip makers who lost income for the future.

    *valley p:*

    Yep, I was raised differently. But no, not to steal. To take the side of the little guy.

    *Bob T:*

    But when you judge by the facts of each case, you are not doing this. Unless you’re admitting to a bias, which has no place in a justice system.

    By the way, your support fpor massive “regulations” on economic activity shows a bias against the litte guy, even if you’re not aware of it. At best, it makes you a useful idiot for Fat Cats and others who want privileges at others’ expense and liberties.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • valley p

      “That rule does cancel out your admitted bias in favor of the little guy in favor of the facts of each individual case, as it should be.”

      When I say I have a bias in favor of the little guy, that doesn’t mean I have a bias with respect to facts. Facts are what they are Bob. Its how one interprets and responds to those facts where bias comes into play.

      “Nonsense. No one should get compensated for what he would earn (potentially) for the next 20 years over something like this”

      Well the law disagrees with you on this. If I can show I have an investment in equipment, training, and experience and a reasonable expectation I could have earned X per year for 20 years, and you took away my ability and right to do so, and a judge and jury agree, then you are liable. And better yet you are also liable for punitive damages for your negligence to discourage others from cutting corners in the future.

      “But when you judge by the facts of each case, you are not doing this. Unless you’re admitting to a bias, which has no place in a justice system.”

      By “facts,” I mean showing lost potential earnings and liability. Show me your books. If the little guy claims he could have earned a million a year but was in fact only earning 1/10th of that averaged over the past 10 years, then he lacks facts.

      Bias has no place in the justice system? What TV drama do you believe in? Bias has been a part of our justice system since day one. Its been shown time and again.

      “By the way, your support fpor massive “regulations” on economic activity shows a bias against the litte guy, even if you’re not aware of it. At best, it makes you a useful idiot for Fat Cats and others who want privileges at others’ expense and liberties.”

      Who said I was for massive regulations? I’m for reasonable and effective regulations, many of which protect the little guy against the big. You may view that as massive. I don’t.

      Grow up Bob. Libertarian economics is fools gold. It never existed and never will, and for darn good reasons.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *valley p:*

    Who said I was for massive regulations? I’m for reasonable and effective regulations, many of which protect the little guy against the big. You may view that as massive. I don’t.

    *Bob T:*

    We have massive regulations now, and have for some decades when you count them from all levels of government. Yet any time someone suggests repealing some people like you sound the alarms about how we’re going to have chaos and dead people about if we do that even a little bit. One
    example of what you and people like you have supported, even if by not questioning it, is the kind of occupation entry requirements seen in Tennessee for decades for those wishing to sell discount caskets or at least caskets at lower prices than anyone else. The state had put people out of business, threatened them and so on, and we’ll never know how many people did not even try. Fortunately, one brave man (a black American, who was supposed to be genetically “liberal” according to the Left) challenged this and ignored the fact that the control freak regulations demanded that he go to school to learn about embalming and other mortician stuff in order to sell boxes that will be seen for only a few days. These laws protected a cartel, and I guarantee you that any comments about the excess in regulations were followed by warnings that without them people would get stuck with coffins made out of toothpicks and glue, or plastic bags and duct tape.

    *valley p:*

    Grow up Bob. Libertarian economics is fools gold. It never existed and never will, and for darn good reasons.

    *Bob T:*

    Libertarian free speech and expression has never existed and never will. I suppose that means to you that we might as well have even more censorship than we have already. Brilliant. The idea, actually, is to constantly protect what we have and strive for the goal.

    To suggest one example, tell us why you support current taxi cab regulations in places like Portland and other cities. I’ve gotta hear this!

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • valley p

      “One example of what you and people like you have supported, even if by not questioning it, is the kind of occupation entry requirements seen in Tennessee ”

      Well I have to admit you have me dead to rights on that one Bob. I have spent zero time petitioning Tennessee to overturn their draconian casket law thingie. Guilty as charged.

      I’m a bit more focused these days on financial services regulation, oil and gas regulation, coal mine operations regulation, food safety regulation, and other trivial matters where the private sector seems to need a bit more oversight due to its well documented propensity to actually kill people, treat the national economy as its private casino, and foul our collective nest.

      “Libertarian free speech and expression has never existed and never will.”

      You had to change the subject? OK…some speech and expression is curtailed. You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. You can’t open a peep show next to a school in most cities. You can’t call for violent overthrow of the government. Get over it.

      “To suggest one example, tell us why you support current taxi cab regulations in places like Portland and other cities. ”

      Who said I did support current regulations on cabs? I’ll look into it after dealing with the more trivial stuff listed up above.

      By the way, I’m a former cab driver in Chicago. Had to pass a test to get a chauffeurs license and then I was free to drive and run the meter. I was not free to pick up anybody while driving any vehicle however. That seems reasonable to me.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Bob T:*

    One example of what you and people like you have supported, even if by not questioning it, is the kind of occupation entry requirements seen in Tennessee ”

    *valley p:*

    Well I have to admit you have me dead to rights on that one Bob. I have spent zero time petitioning Tennessee to overturn their draconian casket law thingie. Guilty as charged.

    *Bob T:*

    That was, of course (as you probably knew) cited as an example of the type of “regulation” we have far too much of which does the opposite of helping the “little guy”, both in how it prevents them from entering an occupational field as well as costing them as consumers.

    *valley p:*

    I’m a bit more focused these days on financial services regulation, oil and gas regulation, coal mine operations regulation, food safety regulation, and other trivial matters where the private sector seems to need a bit more oversight due to its well documented propensity to actually kill people, treat the national economy as its private casino, and foul our collective nest.

    *Bob T:*

    As I pointed out earlier, you can have all of them and it still would be but a small fraction of the regulations we have, and are not the kind I refer to. Once again you have revealed yourself to be someone who seems completely incapable of seeing different types of regulations and being able to sense which ones are nothing but bureaucratic rules by a few to keep competition out and to get higher incomes by forcing the little guy to pay more. That’s why the laws such as the Tennessee casket regulations lasted as long as they did — because people didn’t know or care about them, and if they heard anything at all it was propaganda about how they were “needed” to, well (as you woudl say) help “the little guy” so he wouldn’t be “ripped off” by the casket dealers. The opposite was true. This law is now gone, or mostly gone, despite people like you.

    *Bob T:*

    Libertarian free speech and expression has never existed and never will.

    *valley p:*

    You had to change the subject?

    *Bob T:*

    Nope — the subject here is whether or not having some restrictions on something means that more is okay, or that since we cannot have a perfect free expression society (or market, or illness-free life), that it’s okay to make it less so.

    *valley p:*

    OK…some speech and expression is curtailed. You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.

    *Bob T:*

    That’s actually a violation of the theater owner’s property rights in that by shouting “Fire”, the shouter interferes with the transaction made between the theater owner and the patrons in that they were promised a show for their cash, and the shouter interfered. So you see, he’s not really being told that he has no free speech there but that he cannot trespass and interfere which he could do in any number of ways. The fact that you cannot walk into any house you pick out and start giving a speech to the family inside is hardly an example of someone being denied the liberty to speak. Clearly you must still have some deficiencies in understanding the difference between an actual right and those “rights” that require something from someone else, which means they are not rights.

    *valley p:*

    You can’t open a peep show next to a school in most cities. You can’t call for violent overthrow of the government. Get over it.

    *Bob T:*

    Ah, I see. So because you can’t have a peep show next to a school full of kids, or hold a rally calling for the US government to be overthrown (I’m not sure you are correct on that one, but no matter), it stands to reason that you can be shut up if you have something to say about a candidate in the month before an election, or you can’t publish a small newspaper because you town “already has enough” of them. I see.

    *Bob T:*

    To suggest one example, tell us why you support current taxi cab regulations in places like Portland and other cities.

    *valley p:*

    Who said I did support current regulations on cabs?

    *Bob T:*

    Because everyone like you does. Because no one here can imagine you saying that if someone wants to operate his own one-car cab company, and service just the Kenton-St. Johns area, and only between 8 am and 8 pm, with no wheelchairs able to fit in the vehicle, etc. that he can operate so long as he has auto insurance, a servicable vehicle, a driver’s license, and registers with the city.

    *valley p:*

    I’ll look into it after dealing with the more trivial stuff listed up above.

    *Bob T:*

    Which means never. And that’s the point. People trying to get a monopoly or be part of a cartel and who want to limit competition by using government to do it for them, get their way for decades and decades because people like you don’t think it’s “important”. The little guy you claim to protect is the victim. As usual, you are a fraud when it comes to caring about the little guy. Hence the “useful idiot” label. Fat cats love people like you. So while you are not fighting for these, what happens is that some people do but are cancelled out by people like you at election time who do the usual quick study of the propaganda and buy into the arguments that oh gee, I’d better vote to keep the casket regulatory board so that the little guy doesn’t get stuck paying thousands for a toothpick-and-glue coffin and stuff, and you vote No or you e-mail your state rep to urge the status quo. In other words, you’re in the way. next time, get out of the way and leave those who know the subject to deal with the fat cats.

    *valley p:*

    By the way, I’m a former cab driver in Chicago. Had to pass a test to get a chauffeurs license and then I was free to drive and run the meter.

    *Bob T:*

    Gee, good for you. But so what.

    *valley p:*

    I was not free to pick up anybody while driving any vehicle however. That seems reasonable to me.

    *Bob T:*

    The first point sounds unreasonable, and the second perhaps so if they mean you couldn’t pick someone up if you were driving your old pickup instead (i.e. the vehicle not registered as the vehicle of operation). But here again you are discussing obvious and points (not the first one), instead of the competition-squashing and anti-little guy regulations. You do that all the time. That’s why I said you support making thongs worse because we aren’t 100% free.

    Time to move on from this subject. You did not do well, but if you want the last word as usual, I could care less.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • valley p

      “This law is now gone, or mostly gone, despite people like you. ”

      Well hi hip hooray. I will sleep better knowing I can buy a free market casket in Tennessee. My life has improved exponentially. I was hoping to be composted. Is that legal? And if not why not?

      “the subject here is whether or not having some restrictions on something means that more is okay, or that since we cannot have a perfect free expression society (or market, or illness-free life), that it’s okay to make it less so.”

      Oh. That is the subject? OK then. My opinion is that we ought to have restrictions that make sense, and ought not to have them if they don’t. And that free market and free speech restrictions are not equal. The latter is constitutionally protected, while the former is not (to my knowledge). We could vote in socialism, but not fascism, because that would take a constitutional change.

      “That’s actually a violation of the theater owner’s property rights in that by shouting “Fire”, the shouter interferes with the transaction made between the theater owner and the patrons…”

      Bob, with due respect, I was using a metaphor. It was meant to illustrate that we are not free to say false things that are dangerous, whether inside a theater or outside in a public park is besides the point.

      “I’m not sure you are correct on that one, but no matter”

      Its called the Smith Act. Its illegal. I advise you against trying it out just to test me.

      “it stands to reason that you can be shut up if you have something to say about a candidate in the month before an election,”

      No one shut anyone up. Political advertising was restricted. People were free to speak or write or petition.

      “Because everyone like you does.”

      Oh I see. I’d have to think about your example before offering an opinion. Were you turned down on your business plan? Is that what this is all about? You can’t sell caskets or drive people around Kenton for money and you feel oppressed by big brother? And you need to work this issue out on me or “people like me”?

      “Which means never. And that’s the point. ”

      You got my sarcasm. Good. That is an important step. We can build from there.

      “Fat cats love people like you.”

      I wish they would show it come Christmas bonus time.

      “In other words, you’re in the way. next time, get out of the way and leave those who know the subject to deal with the fat cats.”

      Next time I see a casket regulatory thingie on the ballot I will step out of the way and let the millions who follow this issue more closely to vote as they will. I’ll trade you that for your stepping aside on any vote dealing with banking, environment or related matters ok? Deal?

      “Gee, good for you. But so what.”

      By prefacing the statement with “by the way,” I was indicating that this was an aside. A way to round out my experience on the issue if you will. A point of interest perhaps. But never mind.

      “the competition-squashing and anti-little guy regulations. ”

      OK then. Let me offer an alternative thought that relates to my cab driving experience. As a rule, cab drivers work long hours for very little money. If we reduced regulations to near zero, and let anyone with a drivers license and semi-functioning car go into the cab business, that would likely drive wages down even further no? Thus a whole lot of little guys would end up with less money. So deregulation in this case cuts both ways with respect to little guys. Some could get into the business and make a buck, especially if they drive junker cars without safety devices (hey…why should the government require seat belts and air bags? That is also against the little guy no?)

      “That’s why I said you support making thongs worse…”

      I can’t resist this. Why would I want to make “thongs” worse? Worse in what way? I didn’t even know there was a problem with thongs to begin with.

      “Time to move on from this subject.”

      We finally agree.

      You did not do well,”

      I will try harder, and I’m sure you will let me know when I improve.

      but if you want the last word as usual, I could care less.”

      I think you mean you could *not* care less. Saying you *could* care less implies that you do care about me Bob. That is sweet, but I prefer to keep our relationship at a suitable distance.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)