What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The boycotting countries are going to be hurt more. China can just find other customers.

Right. Tell me a consumer market as big as the u.s. that isn't already buying Chinese goods and could fill that void.

Not that I think a boycott will happen, but china can't just sell a bajillion iphones to sub-sahara africa.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

The boycotting countries are going to be hurt more. China can just find other customers.

Any other solutions? Yelling at North Korea only goes so far and it just Kim more excuses to act out.

To answer your question, potentially. But not significantly. Of course a societal boycott if it happened would not be 100% but selective...and its bark would be far worse than its bite. In China, the heat would not be felt from real implications...but rather significant pressure on government from the now powerful very business class. The US is stil customer #1.

The point is that China doesn't have anything major vested in protecting an extremely bad actor. Any pressure internally...when there will always be internal questions about democracy...could well be enough to push them over the line.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Any other solutions? Yelling at North Korea only goes so far and it just Kim more excuses to act out.

To answer your question, potentially. But not significantly. Of course a societal boycott if it happened would not be 100% but selective...and its bark would be far worse than its bite. In China, the heat would not be felt from real implications...but rather significant pressure on government from the now powerful very business class. The US is stil customer #1.

The point is that China doesn't have anything major vested in protecting an extremely bad actor. Any pressure internally...when there will always be internal questions about democracy...could well be enough to push them over the line.

Yes, but you're also forgetting the potential re-sell aspect. A country like Sweden could buy up all the product and re-sell it to the USA. They could market that it comes from Sweden and you end up paying more, but not enough to offset the cost of domestic production.

Plus, I still don't see what you're trying to accomplish? North Korea being helped by China? We're not turning this into another Vietnam. Going after a country because they've gone after us is one thing. Going after a country because of the perceived threat of another is just plain dumb.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

The point is that China doesn't have anything major vested in protecting an extremely bad actor.

Sure they do. They don't want a flood of refugees if the regime collapses, and they want a buffer zone between them and non-Communist South Korea.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Yes, but you're also forgetting the potential re-sell aspect. A country like Sweden could buy up all the product and re-sell it to the USA. They could market that it comes from Sweden and you end up paying more, but not enough to offset the cost of domestic production.

Plus, I still don't see what you're trying to accomplish? North Korea being helped by China? We're not turning this into another Vietnam. Going after a country because they've gone after us is one thing. Going after a country because of the perceived threat of another is just plain dumb.

I guess we disagree. China is the de facto leader of Asia and they have a major stake in peace due to massive trade there. Additionally, they are the only country with the power to put pressure on North Korea and could very easily do this to diffuse the situation for the entire region. They are party to escalating regional distabilization. And I am of the belief that if you make bad marketplace decisions...you should absolutely pay the price. This is only dumb if you don't understand it.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Sure they do. They don't want a flood of refugees if the regime collapses, and they want a buffer zone between them and non-Communist South Korea.

Yet protecting his remaining in office is different than allowing him to behave in ways that destabilize the region.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

I guess we disagree. China is the de facto leader of Asia and they have a major stake in peace due to massive trade there. Additionally, they are the only country with the power to put pressure on North Korea and could very easily do this to diffuse the situation for the entire region. They are party to escalating regional distabilization. And I am of the belief that if you make bad marketplace decisions...you should absolutely pay the price. This is only dumb if you don't understand it.

I wouldn't underestimate Russia, unless you consider them to be European since much of that country's largest cities are on the other continent.

I don't think either of us would disagree that you could choose not to support something due to bad marketplace decisions, but you have to take a step back and look at the big picture, in that there are not only plenty of other customers, but plenty of ways around the one blocked path.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

I wouldn't underestimate Russia, unless you consider them to be European since much of that country's largest cities are on the other continent.

I don't think either of us would disagree that you could choose not to support something due to bad marketplace decisions, but you have to take a step back and look at the big picture, in that there are not only plenty of other customers, but plenty of ways around the one blocked path.

Oh..I get that there are other customers and consider Russia as the third player here.

Yet I've heard that the trend is to moving manufacturing out of China. Labor rates there are soaring and they are not the low cost producer they once were. I would expect this trend to excellerate. Sure there is low cost labor deep inside the country...but costs are now such that even bringing some production back to the states is not out of the question due to extrordinary shipping costs. So the larger points are that...the US is still a much easier and cheaper customer for China than to reconfigure standards/distribution in trying to get additional products around to say Europe; a US societal boycott would be 60% bluster and 40% real and the bluster will spook China's business leaders; China is not all exclusive manufacturer of choice it used to be. I'm not big into punishing China for its environmental practices (cause I think they're improving) or human rights (as I think they're improving)...but this is not meddling in their internal affairs and is really a low stakes issue for the Chinese govt. Therefore there's no reason they shouldn't be working for regional stability.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Ah Maryland - My Maryland. And the EPA. Or -- Let it Rain, Let it Rain, Let it Rain, Rain, Rain..

Published: Friday, April 5, 2013
The ‘Rain Tax’
Consider all the ways we’re taxed. When we’re born (birth certificate), when we die (death certificate), when we make money (income tax), when we spend money (sales tax), when we own property (property tax), when we sell property (capital gains tax), when we go to a concert or ball game (amusement tax), when we own a vehicle (license, registration, tolls, gas tax) and special taxes on cell phones, tobacco, alcohol, energy, etc. Then, when we die, they tax our income all over again (death tax). Heck, they even tax our bowel movements (flush tax).

But if you thought they ran out of ways to tax us you badly misjudged our lawmakers’ creativity. Get ready for their newest invention, the rain tax. Here’s what’s going on:

In 2010 the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency ordered Maryland to reduce stormwater runoff into the Chesapeake Bay so that nitrogen levels fall 22 percent and phosphorus falls 15 percent from current amounts. The price tag: $14.8 billion.

And where do we get the $14.8 billion? By taxing so-called “impervious surfaces,” anything that prevents rain water from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater run off. In other words, a rain tax.

And who levies this new rain tax? Witness how taxation, like rain, trickles down through the various pervious levels of government until it reaches the impervious level — me and you.

The EPA ordered Maryland to raise the money (an unfunded mandate), Maryland ordered its 10 largest counties to raise the money (another unfunded mandate) and, now, each of those counties is putting a local rain tax in place by July 1.

So, if you live in Montgomery, Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford, Charles, Frederick, Baltimore counties or Baltimore city, you’ll be paying a rain tax on your next property tax bill.

Well, you ask, “How on earth can the government know how much impervious surface I own?” Answer: It’s not on earth, it’s in the sky. Thanks to satellite imagery and geographic information systems, Big Brother can measure your roof and driveway (and you thought drones were only used for killing terrorists).

OK, once the counties raise this money, how is it spent? The state law is kind of squishy. It can be spent to build and maintain stream and wetland restoration projects. And, of course, a lot of it will go to “monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces.” In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

It can also be spent on “public education and outreach” (whatever that means) and on “grants to nonprofit organizations” (i.e. to the greenies who pushed the tax through the various levels of government).

If I asked you to guess which Maryland county is already levying a rain tax on its citizens, you’d correctly answer “Montgomery,” the “more taxes, please” jurisdiction that collected a $17 million rain tax last year. So, since Montgomery County already has a rain tax in place (but only on residences) let’s take a peek at the future. Here’s how Montgomery County is spending some of its rain tax:

“(The county) holds workshops and training events to help residents understand how various projects work. Projects such as rain gardens, conservation landscaping, rain barrels and cisterns, drywells and tree planting are then offered to be installed on properties that qualify, based on the County’s assessment.”

So, I’m supposed to pay a rain tax so the county can train me how to plant a tree, which they’ll give me if, in its view, I qualify? Have we all gone mad?

According to state officials, the 10 rain tax counties must raise $482 million a year to finance the $14.8 billion stormwater cleanup bonds by 2025. About 75 percent will come from homeowners and about 25 percent will come from non-residential property owners.

Credits and exemptions must be granted to property owners who already meet stormwater “best practices” standards. And the county governments can phase-in the rain tax levels (to get them past the next election). Most homeowners will pay around $100 a year (less if you live in an apartment or condo). But the rates may double or triple later.

It’s the nonresidential owners who are getting hit, annually, with five- and six-figure amounts because they own such large rooftops and parking lots (car dealerships, shopping centers, malls, office buildings, warehouses, etc.). Disclosure: My house has a driveway and a (sometimes) impervious roof, and I work for, and partly own, a commercial real estate company.

But homeowners are going to pay the rain tax three times. Once, on their homes. A second time because commercial leases force tenants pay the landlord’s property taxes, which the tenants will, then, pass on to their customers. And a third time as church members or supporters of nonprofit hospitals, private schools and charities.

You see, state lawmakers exempted government-owned property from the rain tax but imposed it on religions and nonprofits (which own big roofs and parking lots).

“What we are waking up to is that a number of counties are moving in the direction of a significant and very unexpected financial impact on organizations that ordinarily are not taxed because they’re nonprofit organizations that provide services to the community and work on very limited budgets,” says Mary Ellen Russell of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

Sorry, the environment comes first. In life, only three things are certain — death, taxes and rain.

Blair Lee is CEO of the Lee Development Group in Silver Spring and a regular commentator for WBAL radio. His column appears Fridays in Business Gazette. His email address is blair@leedg.com.
 
Ah Maryland - My Maryland. And the EPA. Or -- Let it Rain, Let it Rain, Let it Rain, Rain, Rain..

Umm...boo hoo hoo. What's the alternative? To keep polluting the bay? As an relatively older poster you may recall the 1988 Presidential campaign and the issue of Boston Harbor. Mass was ordered to clean it up (by a federal judge I believe, not the EPA) and did. Now the harbor is clean and a tourist attraction. While I don't have exact figures as to how much tax money that generates, I'm sure its not insignficant. Sometimes you gotta pay the piper for past errors.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Umm...boo hoo hoo. What's the alternative? To keep polluting the bay? As an relatively older poster you may recall the 1988 Presidential campaign and the issue of Boston Harbor. Mass was ordered to clean it up (by a federal judge I believe, not the EPA) and did. Now the harbor is clean and a tourist attraction. While I don't have exact figures as to how much tax money that generates, I'm sure its not insignficant. Sometimes you gotta pay the piper for past errors.
But note that in my (Montgomery) county, the government buildings are exempt, but not everyone else. But that would mean that we'd be paying a tax to pay a tax to pay off the EPA goons.

1988 was not THAT long ago. And do you have the cost of the cleanup??
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Are the EPA goons related to the NEA thugs?
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

It's not just Maryland that this is going to happen, storm water runoff is a huge problem
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

It's not just Maryland that this is going to happen, storm water runoff is a huge problem

Yep. Voters in Houston approved levying a similar tax. There was a lot of pre-election griping about whether churches and schools would be exempted.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

There is another way around it, tell all the idiots that live around the Chesapeake to stop spreading chemicals on their lawns and it won't wash into the bay. We pee away more oil than you can shake a stick at keeping suburban lawns looking like a golf course
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

The Norks have rolled a couple of missiles out to the launch pad. This, coupled with their threats to use nukes on America, is as good an argument as I can think of for developing Prompt Global Strike, a system which would allow POTUS to hit targets anywhere in the world with a non-nuclear payload. Faster please. In a hypothetical situation where we're confident the missiles have nuclear warheads and are targeted at us, wouldn't it be nice to simply make them disappear? Without putting any American lives at risk?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...madman-dictator-pictured-brandishing-gun.html
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

The Norks have rolled a couple of missiles out to the launch pad. This, coupled with their threats to use nukes on America, is as good an argument as I can think of for developing Prompt Global Strike, a system which would allow POTUS to hit targets anywhere in the world with a non-nuclear payload. Faster please. In a hypothetical situation where we're confident the missiles have nuclear warheads and are targeted at us, wouldn't it be nice to simply make them disappear? Without putting any American lives at risk?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...madman-dictator-pictured-brandishing-gun.html
Read Fail Safe.

The idea of a preemptive attack before the surefire enemy attack is on the books (6 Day War). But we're dealing with nukes. That makes the rules a bit different. If we're 100% positive that our missile defense works, then I'd let them launch and kill the missile in the boost phase before the warhead separates. Once that's done, then the leash comes off the rottweiler and all heck breaks loose.

If our missile defense is not as advertised, then you think preemptive strike. But, BUT you have to be near 100% sure of your intelligence that your opponent has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Otherwise, it's Iraq all over again.

I'd still let the Chinese handle this with a coup d'etat.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Read Fail Safe.

The idea of a preemptive attack before the surefire enemy attack is on the books (6 Day War). But we're dealing with nukes. That makes the rules a bit different. If we're 100% positive that our missile defense works, then I'd let them launch and kill the missile in the boost phase before the warhead separates. Once that's done, then the leash comes off the rottweiler and all heck breaks loose.

If our missile defense is not as advertised, then you think preemptive strike. But, BUT you have to be near 100% sure of your intelligence that your opponent has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Otherwise, it's Iraq all over again.

I'd still let the Chinese handle this with a coup d'etat.

All plausible. But I'd still want POTUS to have as many options as possible to protect us. Prompt Global Strike envisions giving POTUS the ability to reach out and touch an enemy anywhere in the world with a non-nuclear weapon, inside of an hour. Like a missile on a launch pad, for instance. In my hypothetical we are certain they're planning to launch.

The half century old assumptions and technologies referred to in a work of fiction are not, IMO, terribly relevant in dealing with the NORKS today. Especially since that work of fiction was focused on the "inevitability" of some sort of miscalculation by Cold War adversaries (always the United States, never the Soviets). And I don't believe any POTUS would rely on your breezy scenario of knowing that an adversary was planning to launch nukes at us and letting them do it because we can "kill it in the boost phase." Destroying it on the ground, before it launches, is a far better bet. When it's on the ground you can fire another shot if you miss. A missile shield, while useful, is a last ditch defense.

I don't want some POTUS tearfully trying to explain (like Dom DeLouise) how he had the ability to knock a nuclear missile out on the ground, but didn't do it because he didn't want to strike first and because he was confident in our ability to defend against it. Now that Los Angeles is a smoking crater, well oops, I guess we all make mistakes.

Your comparison with Iraq is faulty because, as you say, we're talking about nukes here. The consquences for a miscalculation are a bit higher. Besides, Hussein did have WMD (he had used them previously) but he didn't have at the time we invaded. Similarly, the NORKS have tested nukes and missiles and have bragged about combining the technologies and attacking us. I think it's prudent to give them the benefit of the doubt on that point, no?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Interesting...

What The ******* Facts ‏@WhatTheFFacts 4m
During his presidency, John F. Kennedy never collected his salary of $150,000 a year. Instead, he donated the full amount to charity.
 
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Well, it's not like he needed the money to impress Marylin Monroe. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top