http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...christmas.html
![Clapping](images/smilies/modern/clapping.gif)
Just because you disagree with her point of view, does not make her stupid. Actually, it does.
I have not delved into the issue, but she does make some strong points about lead, arsenic and mercury. She makes NO points. She just said the words. I'm surprised she pronounced them correctly.
. . . I think you are just trying to stir up some shit as is your wont. Duh. No one comes here for an intelligent conversation. It was getting boring and I thought this would be fun. I knew the usual suspects would come out, and they did.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn
First, you are wrong. She's quite bright. I've met her on several occasions dating back to when she was in the House of Representatives. She has a degree in economics and is whip smart.That snout of your's must be having some serious clogging issues....
As for the numbers, they are not "made up." It's called epidemiology and Industrial hygiene. You figure out who much cheaper gasoline would be using basic supply and demand modeling, use the elasticity curve of gasoline to determine how much more gasoline would be used because of the lower price, and then use basic environmental models to predict increased pollution and mortality from increased gasoline usage. How else do you think cost benefit analysis is done? Originally Posted by TexTushHog
This isn't the first stupid thing Boxer has said. So we should give up the pipeline, and it's thousands of jobs, and let the Chinese get the oil based on some actuary's findings? TTH, I think you would have a tough time recognizing intelligence.Increased gasoline use means increased deaths from pollution. Period. That is not in dispute. How many are acceptable is a policy question. The best answer, in my opinion, is to internalize the external costs of the gasoline -- environmental damage, increased carbon emissions, deaths from pollution, etc. -- into the price of the gasoline. That's the concept behind a carbon tax, just like all Pigouvian taxes. Then, assuming that you have appropriately placed a value on the lives lost, the cost of global warming, etc., the market will make the correct decision on how many is too many.
How many deaths are acceptable, since we won't be able to eliminate death? And since Senator Boxer knows who these people are that will die, why don't we just contact them and tell them to move?
The fact is they don't want the economy to get better if the Republicans get credit for it. Plain and simple. It's too bad the Republicans are the same way. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy