# State of the Union



## falconer_3 (Apr 10, 2003)

I just got done watching the state of the union adress, and I'm angry. Neither Bush nor the democrat response even mentioned the enviromental issues. When it boils down to it, there isn't an issue that conerns us all more than the enviroment and none of our "leaders" care about it. I'm very interested to hear more about where the democrat canidates stand onTHE issue.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This will not be a forefront issue in this campaign. Simply look at the concerns that people are looking at outside of hunting community and the left coast. Health care, taxes national security are the hot buttons. National leaders will harp on this.

To effect change or require accountablity it will start at the state level and who we send to Washington. Dorgan and Pomeroy are up for re-election.

Look at the real things that can affect wetlands in ND. CRP is not a guarantte to stay. Bugets and policy will effect this as much or more than anything. Energy policy,farm programs are the biggest threats we have today. One will need to decide if supporting ethanol is in our best interest from habitat preservation. Where will the new 5 millon acres of corn come from. Next how many acres are in CRP are in corn producing states?

Will those elected be willing to support Federal intervention to protect wetlands and risk aleinating the farm base? Do you remember the uproar over Swampbuster?

On the state level are we capable of getting conservation minded people to promote and secure state wetland laws preventing titling and draining of existing wetland?

While it would be nice to see this be an issue nationally it will not be a front burner issue. Keep this in mind when listening to a candidate and looking at past records. Do not polarize the issue as REP or DEM one only needs to look at the Legislative score card to see that in our state people from both sides helped and hurt us.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I was hoping Bush would go out there and give the public some substance with his speech on several key issues...instead we got the same old rhetoric that he's been spewing for the last three years...if you don't vote for me we're all going to die at the hands of some insane Arabs!

Nothing like instilling fear in people to get them to vote. :eyeroll:

Needless, to say I was very dissapointed with his speech...

And all the democrats suck, even more so than Bush...

Which is why I'm not going to waste my vote this election and vote for a third party. :beer:


----------



## falconer_3 (Apr 10, 2003)

I agree with Matt that the answer is probably with the third party canidates. I realize that this isn't a front burner issue, but here are the facts that Bush needs to explain. Since he took office: Allowable mercury levels from power plants have been tripled, superfund clean-up costs shifted from polluters to public!(that's the one that torks me the most :******: ) and clean air and water acts relax rules for the dirtiest of power plants.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

With the pollution issue. It is economically efficient according to Coase Theorem to have the polluter pay or the public pay as long as there is well defined property rights.

Either the polluter has the right to pollute or the public has the right to clean air. In either case we should reach an equilibrium pollution level that is acceptable to everyone, both polluter and public.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I agree. Only problem with third party candidates is tha it will work against what I see as the more environmentally friendly party, although it makes a BIG difference which candidate they select. Without Nader, we would have Gore roght now, and while I dont want to argue about what he would have done after 911, he would have been better environmentally.


----------



## falconer_3 (Apr 10, 2003)

The whole point of a superfund site is the fact that the corporation has to pay for the EXTREME enviromental damage they have done do to industy. Why should we have to pay to clean up a cynide pit mine? I for one believe that Bush is too soft on his buddies that have thick wallets, and we don't need someone in office that won't stand up for our hunting and fishing rights.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I don't necessarily like the idea of having to pay for pollution either. The whole idea brings about a knee jerk reaction but it costs money to enforce environmental laws. Guess who pays for enforcement? Taxpayers. In some cases it may be more efficient to give rights to the polluter and say ok public you pay for the cleanup or put on these scrubbers on our smoke stack etc etc.

Its a trade off. In the United States we may have pollution standards that other countries do not and this gives the other country a low cost advantage pushing that US company out of business. Less businesses means less jobs.

In some cases Bush may be able to create jobs or at least keep jobs by lowering legal pollution levels.

While I may not like pollution that issue becomes less of a concern when I don't have a job and the economy sucks.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> While I may not like pollution that issue becomes less of a concern when I don't have a job and the economy sucks.


I know a man so full of agent orange he glows in the dark. (his words)
His wife miscarried twice and then they quit trying. On his bad days he does the funky chicken. (his words) The company that produced agent orange knew of it's effects a decade before they sprayed him and a few million others. No lie GI. We always think pollution is someone elses problem until it sits down at your table or crawls into the sheets with you.


----------



## falconer_3 (Apr 10, 2003)

I agree, when it comes down to it, pollution and the enviroment are the only issues that really matter. Jobs wouldn't be allowed to go out of the country if it weren't for money minded politicians like Clinton who approved NAFTA. I don't really buy that there aren't enough jobs. Why is Bush allowing mexicans to work in our country to fill jobs, yet he is trying to create jobs and train people for new jobs? I realize that impovershed mexicans are willing to do work that some proud proffesionals in our country won't, but it just doesn't add up to me. I just don't feel that any issue should be more important that our enviroment and wildlife habitat. What's the point of working if you don't have anything to work for?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I agree with you guys on the environment and feel that it is extremely important.

If you want to fight an enemy you must understand how they think.

I guess The Art of War does have application in todays world.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Issues truely are never important untill they effect you or someone you love. That is the difference between sympothy and empothy. What most do not understand is that issues can either directly/indirectly effect you and you might not even know it.

Pollution effects us all.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

But just the slighest mention of something does usually mean that program will get attention ---Look at Head Start for many years


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

What do you mean, Fetch? Please explain.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I forgot to mention my favorite part of Bush's address...the part on Steroids. Excuse me, but What The F---!!! Why is the use of steroids in professional sports of any concern to the state of the union???

Oh wait, now I remember...Bush used to own a professional baseball team and is a huge sports fan. There's nothing like using the biggest political speech of the year as a platform to talk about your interests besides politics...I can't believe his advisors actually let him include that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Falconer

I never did like or vote for Clinton, but I will defend him on your point of jobs loss to NAFTA. Jobs being lost oversea's is a direct result of you and I and most of America buying imported products because of the cost. We want lower priced shells, boots, coats, decoys, etc. We will not pay 10% more even if it has Made in the USA on it.

Next one cannot shut down all imports for then products like wheat and soybeans and beef will be purchased from other countries that can upply them. Next is the value of the dollar. High dollar value reduces our ablity to export products to other countries.

This is the result of 50 years of policy to increase the standard of living and democracy around the world. Steel imports for example hurt auto makers and emplement companies who passed the cost on to the consummer or absorbed it reducing profits. If profits are going down how many compaines add workers? When the market turns around time is needed to restore losses so workers are required to do more for the same pay. Thus no new jobs are created.

The US has become a service nation and went away from a manufacting nation. This did not happpen on GW watch or CLintion but has been a steady progression since the 50's. Today with the instant communications that we have what takes place in Pejing can be seen on Cable news as it is happening. Because of this protectionism with tarrifs are known by other country;s instantly. This allows them to agressively market against US goods.

GW was right in stating we need to train people to fit the jobs that are there and move on. Straus and other companies like that are not coming back because the American buying public is unwilling to buy American made goods unless it is at below cost of production values.

Americans want High dollar jobs and low dollar products. THe two do not go hand in hand.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Throw this in their too, how about when the feds raise minimum wages only to offset the deficit. They can collect more taxes if they make people pay more for help. This trick has worked several times. It's a big joke that isn't that funny. :bs:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

All actions taken that affect imports also affect exports. Help the steel workers hurt those employed in auto industy. Stop imports of electronics and farm exports to China and other countries are cutoff. Thus placing a higher tax burden on the rest of America.

That is why the pandering about job loss oversea's is not correctable, but a politicaion way of getting elected. Pollution standards we have here none in China, but we buy the China made product because it is cheaper. Ho is to blame? We are no one else.


----------

