Kevin thinks it will be easy, but I don’t see it. Do we get rid of the employer mandate, which will be super expensive? Do we raise the limit to 35 hours a week, which would probably result in somewhat less dumping, but would still cost a bunch of money? And which program would Democrats like to cut to pay for the extra expense? Because Republicans would definitely not be on board with raising taxes for it.
This isn’t just politically hard; it’s actually hard.
One of the many reasons the legislation is such a disaster.
It’s like squaring the circle. Of solving a Rubiks cube that’s been taken apart and put together the wrong way.
…the US needn’t be too complacent either. The shale boom has been partly stoked by the same forces, which are now potentially waning. Oil prices have gone from $20-28 per barrel at the start of the decade to a sustained $100-$105 today. Right now, these prices are being held up by chaos in Middle East and Libya. If circumstances change, price shifts could give US drillers major headaches.
Oil over a hundred a barrel has always been unsustainable over the long haul.
Apple has patented a piece of technology which would allow government and police to block transmission of information, including video and photographs, whenever they like.
All the coppers have to do is decide that a public gathering or venue is deemed “sensitive”, and needs to be “protected from externalities” and Apple will switch off all its gear.
Basically, there’s one real problem — the real climate refuses to behave correctly. I went into this at length then, so I won’t repeat the whole argument, but the basic point is this: the actual observed temperatures have been flat for almost 20 years, and are now at the edge of the confidence interval — that is, the modelers would have taken a 20-1 bet against the temperatures staying this low.