It is not about the actual number of people killed, rather the threat your average person feels from the technology. To your average person not involved in construction or maintenance, the threat posed by PV/Turbines is negligible, meanwhile average people living withing several miles from nuclear reactors fear the release of radioactive material.
That should be easy then. Just keep running nuclear plants and eventually the public will find something else to be threatened about.
Sure, biofuels, nuclear power, renewable electric power, that sort of thing. Just because fossil fuels are more economical now, doesn't mean they'll stay that way. I just think that expecting a standard of living to require a certain amount of fossil fuels burned is a blindered view of things.
Like yesterday, my standard of living wasn't burning half a gallon of gasoline or using a modest amount of electricity, it was getting from point A to point B for a social affair. There's no law of physics that requires me to have dinosaurs and fossil fuel-derived corn in the tank or 300 million year old plants in my local power plant. It just happens to be what is used now.
While I think that the current alleged consensus on catastrophic global warming and other climate change is grossly exaggerated, I don't see fossil fuels being used as they currently are forever. There will come a time when we'll switch to other things. I'm just not in a hurry to do so.
The amount of energy that arrives on Earth from sunlight in a year divided by the amount of energy that humanity consumes in a year. From this link, we have 89,300 TW of solar power on average falling upon Earth. It is then stated:
This theoretical potential represents more energy striking the earthâ(TM)s surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)
EJ = exajoule. That's a bit under a factor of 10,000 (I should have said 4 orders of magnitude not 5). In other words, the Earth dissipates away all that sunlight energy every day and my view is that human activity would have to be of similar magnitude before there is a heat dissipation problem.
It's worth noting here that the current primary factor resulting in increased wealth inequality for the US is a purely non-regulatory one, the addition of several billion new laborers over the past half century to the global trade network. That impairs the wealth gain from labor and doesn't impair the wealth gain from capital - which favors relative wealth gain by the wealthy who are more dependent on capital for their wealth. And regulation has tended to make wealth inequality worse by impairing business from employing US workers.
My view is that the US and the rest of the developed world would be better served by regulation that takes into account the costs on employers.
A rather compelling argument has been made that widening income inequality is an inherent result of capitalism.
Which is easily defeated by a consideration of history. Wealth inequality has narrowed under capitalism as well (eg, various times during the Industrial Age when advances in technology were met by uses of that technology).
...as long as the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g), wealth will tend to concentrate in a minority, and that the inequality r > g always holds over the long term...
This a broken model since it doesn't consider the liquidity or utility of wealth. I call wealth which has a high notational value, but isn't even remotely that valuable in reality (especially in terms of conversion to a liquid form of wealth) "fake wealth". For example, I might have trillions of dollars suposedly = in specialized derivatives. But if that can't be converted to real dollars and used for something, then it's not actually worth trillions of dollars.
This leads to the problem that "r" above is an exaggerated number with little relevance to the real world. You won't care if I decree that every hair on your head is worth a million dollars, unless I begin paying you a million dollars apiece for those hairs. Yet I just created meaningless wealth inequality by my meaningless decree.
This is a real thing because we have a number of cases of trillions of dollars in perceived wealth evaporating overnight. It's a common cause of recessions.
Bottom line is that the growth of liquid wealth is going to be fairly close to economic growth and it can go either way and often does. There's no point to measuring wealth inequality when the wealth being measured is mostly useless.
While the article is correct in pointing out the problem caused by unfair wealth distribution, the cause of the unfair wealth distribution is not China per se
"Unfair" is just a subjective connotation and doesn't belong in an article trying to be serious about economics.
It is the Law of Supply and Demand in action, whenever population grows faster than resource-production.
Resource production is increasing faster than population. And we're seeing the anticipated increase in standard of living and global wealth distribution to a so-called "fairer" scheme. Nice, except that wasn't what you thought was going on, was it?
Still no answer. Not even a copy/paste from the article which supposedly backs the original assertion that there are "cooling resources" which are sufficiently "limited" to matter.
This is your second, low content rebuttal to my posts. Even with Fukushima and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and a host of other accidents, even with the considerable number of deaths from uranium mining, nuclear power remains safer than the other sources of power I mentioned. Safety is not the way you argue against nuclear power.
Barring breakthroughs in fusion or another new energy source, the only solution to climate change is that 1st world countries are going to have to reduce their standard of living. Ultimately it will happen one way or the other.
Unless, of course, it doesn't happen one way or another. The problem with this sort of thinking, is that you completely ignore technology or population reduction. Most of what we want doesn't require emission of CO2 or exponential population growth. Technology is well on its way to disentangling standard of living from a reliance on fossil fuels.
And one of the obvious things missed here is that a higher standard of living and wealth translates into negative population rates. By ruling out higher standards of living, you are creating a permanent climate problem of continual human exponential population growth followed by environmentally catastrophic die-offs.
The only way to not have an unbearably warmer world is to reduce our energy usage. If energy usage continues to grow at it's current rate, regardless of the technology used to generate it, earth's oceans will boil away in a few hundred years:
So the only way to avoid exponential growth in energy consumption for the next few centuries is to cut our energy usage right now. Did I get that right?
The technological problem with nuclear power is that no one has come up with a passively safe design.
Actually, recent generations are passively safe.
Safety systems that depend on human intervention have been shown to be impossible to implement and maintain consistently, at least in a commercial environment.
Code for "profit is evil!" There are 440 commercially operated nuclear plants in the world (as of January 2016) with a safety record spanning about 50 years indicating that they do a pretty good job compared to alternate power sources like hydro, coal, wind, or solar.
We can't even maintain safety and quality control standards during the construction phase. We repeatedly have had nuclear plants fail at least in part because they weren't constructed to spec.
You have yet to demonstrate that the "specs" actually help make nuclear power safer, let us note. A lot of relatively poor choices, extending the lives of old nuclear plants, happens because no one is making enough new plants to specs that the old plants could never achieve.
Already cooling resouces are limited and will become more so
And we're five orders of magnitude away from exhausting those cooling resources (direct heat from human sources is well below the heat radiated from Earth). How about giving us a problem that is actually a problem?
It's good then that I'm here to illuminate your little world. Even in a situation where you have to vote for a choice of "traitors", you can always vote for the traitor who is not in office.
Here, I voted for Romney because he wasn't the one in office. He did turn out to be the better choice as the last four years demonstrated (for example, he wouldn't have almost lost Iraq and then crept back into a conflict with terrible strategic positioning with ISIS; he wouldn't have backstabbed allies for another four years; he wouldn't have terribly implemented health care "reform"; and the US economy would be better off than with the hostile and incompetent Obama administration.). But the same people who chose to vote for the worst of two evils continue to rationalize their choices. I frequently call them out when they do that.
so here, enjoy a big, steaming mug of shut the hell up.
If you're renting, you're borrowing a property. It's basically the same as paying interest.
I read your earlier post on the matter to determine what you mean by "same". The answer is no, renting is not the same as borrowing. A loan means you borrow money now in exchange for creating an obligation to pay in the future. Renting usually does not. For example, I might be renting a very expensive apartment in Manhattan today, but I can move out. I can't decide that I want a smaller loan and just move out of my old big one.
Truth be told I didn't have that sparkling of an opinion of the man back in 2008, either, but it's not like we were given any other viable choice; was I supposed to vote for yet another Republican, after we'd be fucked in the ass by the Bush family of traitors for so many years?
"The other side was worse" is the worst excuse in the book. And now it turns that in your opinion, you voted for a traitor. You made your bed.
There were other wars than the Second World War and even in the Second World War, the US wasn't the only participant. I think you would change your tune, if you looked at a greater variety of wars (or even just looked at what happened to other countries in the Second World War, for that matter) and see the true consequences of war.
Creating an economy whose sole purpose is to destroy some other group of people with their own economy, is not and never will be a healthy economy.
A post-war nation can find itself in a position for an economic boom.
Which isn't saying a thing. No longer having a foe actively destroying your people, infrastructure, and trade, will create a tremendous economic boom all on its own.
and that means the military Industrial Complex can shift out of low gear.
There's nothing magical or useful about the military industrial complex for economic purposes. Since you're making war tools and such, you're actually diverting resources from making your economy better. So nuking five US cities and then shifting the military industrial complex out of low gear is going to badly mess up the US economy.
"Fair trade" is a less appropriate a description than "free trade". And I don't see how you could have made that mistake given your description of trade agreements that have nothing to do with fairness.
This here is a perfect example of the kind of bullshit that your regular partisan hacks spew out in their little internet rags or on the radio. I expected better from you:-)
It's true though. Let us recall that this particular subthread started because you asserted that the IRS wasn't partisan. But we see here an obviously partisan IRS manager doing the dirty work with a history of partisan dirty work.
Ideologues don't trust outsiders to do the dirty work. For example, when the Bolsheviks took over Russia, they didn't keep the old administrations from the era of the Czars or the short-lived Russian Republic. They put their own people in charge and cleaned house even though there was probably a bunch of existing bureaucrats willing to do whatever they wished.
Conversely, a non-partisan bureaucrat isn't going to take a hit for the team because they have to weather future administrations which can be current enemies of the present administration. But many of them will have no trouble with unconstitutional activities which don't involve risk of prison or crossing a future employer.
Yeah, stupid roads and schools and ports and armies and bridges and cops and firemen and people trying to keep us from getting food poisoning and NASA and SBA loans and grants to Silicon Valley companies and regulations about how many hours a guy driving a big rig truck that weighs eleventy thousand pounds on the road next can go before he needs to sleep and safety gear on cars and standards for housing and electricity and power and water and sewage and rules for banks about not stealing peoples money or giving it to their friends (real regulations, banks used to be bad, still are) and courts and emergency help when mother nature opens a can of whoop-ass on a coast and that pesky net neutrality thing and NOAA helping people plan things like shipping and air travel around weather and oh yeah air travel regulations and stupid speed limits around schools and making sure my employer actually pays me for my work and those laws about not letting the boss grab the secretary's ass and prisons and the Coast Guard and grants that helped launch just about every company in Silicon Valley or at least got their "talent" a degree from some fancy college and rules about having auto insurance if you crash into me so you don't leave me in the hospital flat broke and borders with rules about what can and cannot come into the country because there's some nasty insects in other places that could wipe out crops aka food and clean water rules cause fish are food too and making sure the gas station sells me a gallon of gas and not nine tenths of a gallon same for the local market meat department scale and labels on food so we can make smart choices about what we feed ourselves and our kids and man oh man if I could murder the competition with my superior resources and not be called anti-competitive I could rule the world stupid government with its stupid taxes.
I wish people like you knew what numbers mean. You have one word on that list, "armies" for which the US government spends twice or more as much as the rest of your list combined. And glancing at an actual 2014 budget, I see about 50% of the federal budget has nothing to do with important services or regulations, but rather is entitlement spending, basically transferring wealth from young or healthy people to old or sick people. Another 10% is paying interest on debt.
That crap doesn't build roads or keep rich CEOs from killing people. Instead, it is a costly distraction from the important stuff that the US government does.
See, we didn't find out about this by brave investigative journalists or courageous insider leaks catching her red handed. Lerner herself planted a question to be asked in a meeting so she could let people know and apologize for it. And she only did it after discussing it (read: ordered to) with her superior, the acting IRS Commissioner at the time.
A report on the inappropriate audits was to be publicly released four days later.
It's worth noting two things here. First, the discriminatory and illegal actions kept going till that very month. If she had really caught this activity earlier you'd have expected her to either stop the activity or to tell someone about it - she did have an opportunity two days before to come clean with a congressional hearing on that very matter.
Second, she introduced the admission in a highly deceptive manner by having someone ask her a planted question in a press conference, giving a false appearance of openness and cooperation when in truth, she could have only delayed release of the information for another four days.
She did it only because she was about to be caught red-handed.
And if, as you alleged, her superiors were in on this game, then that's a strong indication that they were in on the earlier illegal auditing as well.
Before that, she served under IRS Commissioners appointed by Bush, and we didn't hear them being so diligent and getting their employees to come out and apologize for wrongdoing. Maybe they were ignorant that she was acting badly, or maybe they were too incompetent to realize that she was acting badly, or they were simply too corrupt and think acting badly is ok when it's their side doing it.
And of course, now we see the high moral standards of the day. If Bush does something, of if we believe he did something erroneously (as in your assertion), then it's just fine for our politicians to do that too. I believe the applicable term here is "projection" for your insinuation that I think it's just fine when my politicians do it.
This is especially silly to assert since Lerner didn't pull that stuff during a Bush administration. The last time she pulled those games was in the late 90s under the Clinton administration.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not about the actual number of people killed, rather the threat your average person feels from the technology. To your average person not involved in construction or maintenance, the threat posed by PV/Turbines is negligible, meanwhile average people living withing several miles from nuclear reactors fear the release of radioactive material.
That should be easy then. Just keep running nuclear plants and eventually the public will find something else to be threatened about.
Anything specific you are talking about?
Sure, biofuels, nuclear power, renewable electric power, that sort of thing. Just because fossil fuels are more economical now, doesn't mean they'll stay that way. I just think that expecting a standard of living to require a certain amount of fossil fuels burned is a blindered view of things.
Like yesterday, my standard of living wasn't burning half a gallon of gasoline or using a modest amount of electricity, it was getting from point A to point B for a social affair. There's no law of physics that requires me to have dinosaurs and fossil fuel-derived corn in the tank or 300 million year old plants in my local power plant. It just happens to be what is used now.
While I think that the current alleged consensus on catastrophic global warming and other climate change is grossly exaggerated, I don't see fossil fuels being used as they currently are forever. There will come a time when we'll switch to other things. I'm just not in a hurry to do so.
How do you get cooling water to the reactor to carry heat to the environment to dissipate if water resources are limited?
You would use your limited water resources to get rid of your limited waste heat. It's all finite right?
This theoretical potential represents more energy striking the earthâ(TM)s surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)
EJ = exajoule. That's a bit under a factor of 10,000 (I should have said 4 orders of magnitude not 5). In other words, the Earth dissipates away all that sunlight energy every day and my view is that human activity would have to be of similar magnitude before there is a heat dissipation problem.
When capitalism is properly regulated.
It's worth noting here that the current primary factor resulting in increased wealth inequality for the US is a purely non-regulatory one, the addition of several billion new laborers over the past half century to the global trade network. That impairs the wealth gain from labor and doesn't impair the wealth gain from capital - which favors relative wealth gain by the wealthy who are more dependent on capital for their wealth. And regulation has tended to make wealth inequality worse by impairing business from employing US workers.
My view is that the US and the rest of the developed world would be better served by regulation that takes into account the costs on employers.
A rather compelling argument has been made that widening income inequality is an inherent result of capitalism.
Which is easily defeated by a consideration of history. Wealth inequality has narrowed under capitalism as well (eg, various times during the Industrial Age when advances in technology were met by uses of that technology).
...as long as the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g), wealth will tend to concentrate in a minority, and that the inequality r > g always holds over the long term...
This a broken model since it doesn't consider the liquidity or utility of wealth. I call wealth which has a high notational value, but isn't even remotely that valuable in reality (especially in terms of conversion to a liquid form of wealth) "fake wealth". For example, I might have trillions of dollars suposedly = in specialized derivatives. But if that can't be converted to real dollars and used for something, then it's not actually worth trillions of dollars.
This leads to the problem that "r" above is an exaggerated number with little relevance to the real world. You won't care if I decree that every hair on your head is worth a million dollars, unless I begin paying you a million dollars apiece for those hairs. Yet I just created meaningless wealth inequality by my meaningless decree.
This is a real thing because we have a number of cases of trillions of dollars in perceived wealth evaporating overnight. It's a common cause of recessions.
Bottom line is that the growth of liquid wealth is going to be fairly close to economic growth and it can go either way and often does. There's no point to measuring wealth inequality when the wealth being measured is mostly useless.
While the article is correct in pointing out the problem caused by unfair wealth distribution, the cause of the unfair wealth distribution is not China per se
"Unfair" is just a subjective connotation and doesn't belong in an article trying to be serious about economics.
It is the Law of Supply and Demand in action, whenever population grows faster than resource-production.
Resource production is increasing faster than population. And we're seeing the anticipated increase in standard of living and global wealth distribution to a so-called "fairer" scheme. Nice, except that wasn't what you thought was going on, was it?
Still no answer. Not even a copy/paste from the article which supposedly backs the original assertion that there are "cooling resources" which are sufficiently "limited" to matter.
I guess bottomless hatred of humanity does seem a thing for modern environmentalists.
This is your second, low content rebuttal to my posts. Even with Fukushima and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and a host of other accidents, even with the considerable number of deaths from uranium mining, nuclear power remains safer than the other sources of power I mentioned. Safety is not the way you argue against nuclear power.
So no answer then.
Barring breakthroughs in fusion or another new energy source, the only solution to climate change is that 1st world countries are going to have to reduce their standard of living. Ultimately it will happen one way or the other.
Unless, of course, it doesn't happen one way or another. The problem with this sort of thinking, is that you completely ignore technology or population reduction. Most of what we want doesn't require emission of CO2 or exponential population growth. Technology is well on its way to disentangling standard of living from a reliance on fossil fuels.
And one of the obvious things missed here is that a higher standard of living and wealth translates into negative population rates. By ruling out higher standards of living, you are creating a permanent climate problem of continual human exponential population growth followed by environmentally catastrophic die-offs.
The only way to not have an unbearably warmer world is to reduce our energy usage. If energy usage continues to grow at it's current rate, regardless of the technology used to generate it, earth's oceans will boil away in a few hundred years:
So the only way to avoid exponential growth in energy consumption for the next few centuries is to cut our energy usage right now. Did I get that right?
The technological problem with nuclear power is that no one has come up with a passively safe design.
Actually, recent generations are passively safe.
Safety systems that depend on human intervention have been shown to be impossible to implement and maintain consistently, at least in a commercial environment.
Code for "profit is evil!" There are 440 commercially operated nuclear plants in the world (as of January 2016) with a safety record spanning about 50 years indicating that they do a pretty good job compared to alternate power sources like hydro, coal, wind, or solar.
We can't even maintain safety and quality control standards during the construction phase. We repeatedly have had nuclear plants fail at least in part because they weren't constructed to spec.
You have yet to demonstrate that the "specs" actually help make nuclear power safer, let us note. A lot of relatively poor choices, extending the lives of old nuclear plants, happens because no one is making enough new plants to specs that the old plants could never achieve.
Already cooling resouces are limited and will become more so
And we're five orders of magnitude away from exhausting those cooling resources (direct heat from human sources is well below the heat radiated from Earth). How about giving us a problem that is actually a problem?
Here, I voted for Romney because he wasn't the one in office. He did turn out to be the better choice as the last four years demonstrated (for example, he wouldn't have almost lost Iraq and then crept back into a conflict with terrible strategic positioning with ISIS; he wouldn't have backstabbed allies for another four years; he wouldn't have terribly implemented health care "reform"; and the US economy would be better off than with the hostile and incompetent Obama administration.). But the same people who chose to vote for the worst of two evils continue to rationalize their choices. I frequently call them out when they do that.
so here, enjoy a big, steaming mug of shut the hell up.
Back at you.
If you're renting, you're borrowing a property. It's basically the same as paying interest.
I read your earlier post on the matter to determine what you mean by "same". The answer is no, renting is not the same as borrowing. A loan means you borrow money now in exchange for creating an obligation to pay in the future. Renting usually does not. For example, I might be renting a very expensive apartment in Manhattan today, but I can move out. I can't decide that I want a smaller loan and just move out of my old big one.
D you really even the slightest difficulty parsing that? Because otherwise, it's not the Americans who are the idiots here.
Truth be told I didn't have that sparkling of an opinion of the man back in 2008, either, but it's not like we were given any other viable choice; was I supposed to vote for yet another Republican, after we'd be fucked in the ass by the Bush family of traitors for so many years?
"The other side was worse" is the worst excuse in the book. And now it turns that in your opinion, you voted for a traitor. You made your bed.
Creating an economy whose sole purpose is to destroy some other group of people with their own economy, is not and never will be a healthy economy.
A post-war nation can find itself in a position for an economic boom.
Which isn't saying a thing. No longer having a foe actively destroying your people, infrastructure, and trade, will create a tremendous economic boom all on its own.
and that means the military Industrial Complex can shift out of low gear.
There's nothing magical or useful about the military industrial complex for economic purposes. Since you're making war tools and such, you're actually diverting resources from making your economy better. So nuking five US cities and then shifting the military industrial complex out of low gear is going to badly mess up the US economy.
"Fair trade" is a less appropriate a description than "free trade". And I don't see how you could have made that mistake given your description of trade agreements that have nothing to do with fairness.
This here is a perfect example of the kind of bullshit that your regular partisan hacks spew out in their little internet rags or on the radio. I expected better from you :-)
It's true though. Let us recall that this particular subthread started because you asserted that the IRS wasn't partisan. But we see here an obviously partisan IRS manager doing the dirty work with a history of partisan dirty work.
Ideologues don't trust outsiders to do the dirty work. For example, when the Bolsheviks took over Russia, they didn't keep the old administrations from the era of the Czars or the short-lived Russian Republic. They put their own people in charge and cleaned house even though there was probably a bunch of existing bureaucrats willing to do whatever they wished.
Conversely, a non-partisan bureaucrat isn't going to take a hit for the team because they have to weather future administrations which can be current enemies of the present administration. But many of them will have no trouble with unconstitutional activities which don't involve risk of prison or crossing a future employer.
Yeah, stupid roads and schools and ports and armies and bridges and cops and firemen and people trying to keep us from getting food poisoning and NASA and SBA loans and grants to Silicon Valley companies and regulations about how many hours a guy driving a big rig truck that weighs eleventy thousand pounds on the road next can go before he needs to sleep and safety gear on cars and standards for housing and electricity and power and water and sewage and rules for banks about not stealing peoples money or giving it to their friends (real regulations, banks used to be bad, still are) and courts and emergency help when mother nature opens a can of whoop-ass on a coast and that pesky net neutrality thing and NOAA helping people plan things like shipping and air travel around weather and oh yeah air travel regulations and stupid speed limits around schools and making sure my employer actually pays me for my work and those laws about not letting the boss grab the secretary's ass and prisons and the Coast Guard and grants that helped launch just about every company in Silicon Valley or at least got their "talent" a degree from some fancy college and rules about having auto insurance if you crash into me so you don't leave me in the hospital flat broke and borders with rules about what can and cannot come into the country because there's some nasty insects in other places that could wipe out crops aka food and clean water rules cause fish are food too and making sure the gas station sells me a gallon of gas and not nine tenths of a gallon same for the local market meat department scale and labels on food so we can make smart choices about what we feed ourselves and our kids and man oh man if I could murder the competition with my superior resources and not be called anti-competitive I could rule the world stupid government with its stupid taxes.
I wish people like you knew what numbers mean. You have one word on that list, "armies" for which the US government spends twice or more as much as the rest of your list combined. And glancing at an actual 2014 budget, I see about 50% of the federal budget has nothing to do with important services or regulations, but rather is entitlement spending, basically transferring wealth from young or healthy people to old or sick people. Another 10% is paying interest on debt.
That crap doesn't build roads or keep rich CEOs from killing people. Instead, it is a costly distraction from the important stuff that the US government does.
See, we didn't find out about this by brave investigative journalists or courageous insider leaks catching her red handed. Lerner herself planted a question to be asked in a meeting so she could let people know and apologize for it. And she only did it after discussing it (read: ordered to) with her superior, the acting IRS Commissioner at the time.
A report on the inappropriate audits was to be publicly released four days later.
It's worth noting two things here. First, the discriminatory and illegal actions kept going till that very month. If she had really caught this activity earlier you'd have expected her to either stop the activity or to tell someone about it - she did have an opportunity two days before to come clean with a congressional hearing on that very matter.
Second, she introduced the admission in a highly deceptive manner by having someone ask her a planted question in a press conference, giving a false appearance of openness and cooperation when in truth, she could have only delayed release of the information for another four days.
She did it only because she was about to be caught red-handed.
And if, as you alleged, her superiors were in on this game, then that's a strong indication that they were in on the earlier illegal auditing as well.
Before that, she served under IRS Commissioners appointed by Bush, and we didn't hear them being so diligent and getting their employees to come out and apologize for wrongdoing. Maybe they were ignorant that she was acting badly, or maybe they were too incompetent to realize that she was acting badly, or they were simply too corrupt and think acting badly is ok when it's their side doing it.
And of course, now we see the high moral standards of the day. If Bush does something, of if we believe he did something erroneously (as in your assertion), then it's just fine for our politicians to do that too. I believe the applicable term here is "projection" for your insinuation that I think it's just fine when my politicians do it.
This is especially silly to assert since Lerner didn't pull that stuff during a Bush administration. The last time she pulled those games was in the late 90s under the Clinton administration.