Hillary or Trump who's better for reef hobby :D

[tarunteam]

Why not?

[seabass]

I predict this thread will spiral out of control.


However:

• Which one do you think is more likely to push ESA protections for certain species of fish and coral (making ownership illegal despite being able to cultivate them in captivity)?
• Will local fish stores be able to shell out $15 an hour for all their current employees, or will they have to lay a few off?
• On the other hand, you could argue that one would be stronger on environmental protections and global climate change.

[Cencalfishguy56]

<p>

I predict this thread will be a train wreck.

 

 

However:

• Which one do you think is more likely to push ESA protections for certain species of fish and coral (making ownership illegal despite being able to cultivate them in captivity)?
• Will local fish stores be able to shell out $15 an hour for all their current employees, or will they have to lay a few off?
• On the other hand, you could argue that one would be stronger on environmental protections and global climate change.

while I think those are some important points I doubt neither candidate give a shit about this beautiful hobby and yea I think it's best to keep this site all things reed related I mean it's our happy place after all!

[aviator300]

If anyone bases a vote for President of the United States on our hobby, I pity the fool.

[tarunteam]

Mike Penance (let's not kid ourselves, he'll be running the country if trump wins) will probably attempt to detooth the EPA. So Trump presidency will most likely see a relaxing of the regulations and punishments for violation. Which probably means we'll see lot more cheaper and endangered corals on the market. If Trump, somehow, manages to remove the minimum wage requirement. This will probably force prices down more as majority of the cost of supplies at aquarium is usually labor + building. Ultimately, we may see quite a bit of short term growth.

 

With Hillary, I do expect EPA regulations to toughen. Especially with climate change being a major part of the democratic platform and the recent publicity about the decline of the GBR. Any give me climate bill will be a easy push. We will probably see fewer new corals on the market and expect prices to either remain the same or go up a bit. 15$/hr is going to hurt some stores. We can expect larger, further stores. But those stores will likely have more corals. This may drive coral prices a bit up? I really can't think of any store that pays lets the 12-13$ a hour.

 

Even though Trump's short term solution is kinda nice. It does lot's of damage to the environment and ultimately hurts this hobby. Hillary's plan, while slightly more expensive, improves the reef's of the world. I think a moral cost is worth much more then the monetary cost. But to each his own.

[seabass]

Unfortunately, CO2 taxes (which, by the way, neither candidate have endorsed yet) tend to be more about increasing tax revenues than about saving the environment. Unless the other major contributing countries also cut CO2 emissions, global carbon levels will continue to rise and our country just ends up being disproportionately handicapped with higher taxes and energy costs (while trying to compete in a global marketplace).

 

However, I live in Iowa where wind power accounts for over 30% of the state's generated electricity. So there are other solutions, and progress is being made.

 

The minimum wage might have an effect on our hobby, but the thing that I'm more concerned about (regarding the government and our hobby) is the potentially growing list of fish and coral species with ESA protections, and how this affects the legal status of our captive populations. If you read the link in my signature, you will see that I actually propose protecting all coral, but push to allow captive populations.

[crawdads57]

I once read that reef keeping has little to do with keeping fish and corals and everything to do with "keeping water." I always liked that way of looking at it.

 

So in that case... neither candidate can correct the dire circumstances we will see within our lifetimes. When? I do not know. But when a gallon of water costs more than a gallon of gas, we'll all know we're there. And then water changes are going to be a real bitch - even on a nano.

[patback]

I once read that reef keeping has little to do with keeping fish and corals and everything to do with "keeping water." I always liked that way of looking at it.

 

So in that case... neither candidate can correct the dire circumstances we will see within our lifetimes. When? I do not know. But when a gallon of water costs more than a gallon of gas, we'll all know we're there. And then water changes are going to be a real bitch - even on a nano.

if we ever get to that point, I'm putting my money on nuclear fall out. That's about the point I say my coral can fend for them selves.

[seabass]

 

[Cencalfishguy56]

 

lol I'm sure they both have never kept tangs in a nano

[ajmckay]

LOL!

[squamptonbc]

Doubt either of them directly care, but either could indirectly cause issues depending on what legislation comes out of congress and other gov't departments.

[supernip]

I bet Bill's a reefer. So Hillary by association.

[aviator300]

Mike Penance (let's not kid ourselves, he'll be running the country if trump wins) will probably attempt to detooth the EPA. So Trump presidency will most likely see a relaxing of the regulations and punishments for violation. Which probably means we'll see lot more cheaper and endangered corals on the market. If Trump, somehow, manages to remove the minimum wage requirement. This will probably force prices down more as majority of the cost of supplies at aquarium is usually labor + building. Ultimately, we may see quite a bit of short term growth.

 

With Hillary, I do expect EPA regulations to toughen. Especially with climate change being a major part of the democratic platform and the recent publicity about the decline of the GBR. Any give me climate bill will be a easy push. We will probably see fewer new corals on the market and expect prices to either remain the same or go up a bit. 15$/hr is going to hurt some stores. We can expect larger, further stores. But those stores will likely have more corals. This may drive coral prices a bit up? I really can't think of any store that pays lets the 12-13$ a hour.

 

Even though Trump's short term solution is kinda nice. It does lot's of damage to the environment and ultimately hurts this hobby. Hillary's plan, while slightly more expensive, improves the reef's of the world. I think a moral cost is worth much more then the monetary cost. But to each his own.

What ?

[mystersyster]

What ?

Your condescending what triggers me. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I do understand where he is coming from. If 15/hr passes let it hurt stores. Brick and mortar is just a convenience as far as I am concerned. If "fellow" hobbyists can't afford to pay their employees a livable wage, #### 'em. I'd rather spend the 29.99 on liveaquaria for ich-free coral and fish.

 

Trump flat out denies climate change. He believes it's a hoax (at least that's what he has said). This means he wont give a shit about our global reefs (in theory). I work for BNSF railway and I have very low seniority. I was furloughed for 14 months. That sucked, and I was broke as shit going to school on the GI bill, which paid 700 bucks a month. The railroad's business depends on a lot on oil shipment. As much as I would love to have job security, I can not, and never will sacrifice the future of the human race for my greed. How about you add to conversation in an informed manner instead of just being a tool. Just my .02 cents, or phosphate.

[seabass]

IMO, it's prosperity that gives birth to innovation (which provides viable solutions like hydrogen, wind, and solar). We must be careful not to cripple our economy, or it can stifle this innovation.

 

At $19.5 trillion of national debt, even a modest rise in interest rates will end up diverting most of our tax dollars to service it. Unfortunately, neither candidate is for lower the debt; and it will end up biting us in the ass. Alright, that's enough political talk for me; but feel free to carry on.

[1.0reef]

Please keep this suicide inducing shit in the comments of news articles

[Gooburz]

 

 

YOU HAVE LITERALLY WON THE INTERNET FOR THE YEAR!!!!!

[mystersyster]

 

YOU HAVE LITERALLY WON THE INTERNET FOR THE YEAR!!!!!

You must have missed the reef memes thread lol

[Cencalfishguy56]

Please keep this suicide inducing shit in the comments of news articles

THANK YOU!! I come here to reef not have a political debate with fellow reefers!

[supernip]

IMO, it's prosperity that gives birth to innovation (which provides viable solutions like hydrogen, wind, and solar). We must be careful not to cripple our economy, or it can stifle this innovation.

 

At $19.5 trillion of national debt, even a modest rise in interest rates will end up diverting most of our tax dollars to service it. Unfortunately, neither candidate is for lower the debt; and it will end up biting us in the ass. Alright, that's enough political talk for me; but feel free to carry on.

 

 

Let me just address this real quick before I point you to the cluster#### that is the lounge.

 

1. It's "necessity is the mother of all invention," not prosperity. That breeds bubbles and complacency

2. If it's prosperity you want, why the hell would you vote for Trump? Even conservative analysts say his fiscal "policies" would balloon the national debt and ruin the economy.

 

 

by your own metrics, Hillary is the better candidate and that's not saying much in a shit show like this. Your stance is a joke right? (spoiler: it is)

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate

 

Trump wants to cut income tax rates while capping deductions for the wealthy. He would also reduce the business tax rate to 15 percent and eliminate the estate tax. The conservative Tax Foundation estimates that his plan would reduce federal revenue by $4.4 trillion to $5.9 trillion over the next decade, which is a lot, but down from $10 trillion in his original plan.

Some of that could be offset by economic growth, but even using “dynamic scoring,” the foundation says the plan cuts tax revenue by $2.6 trillion to $3.9 trillion over 10 years. (The higher figure is if the 15 percent business tax rate is applied to “pass-through” entities.) The biggest beneficiaries of Trump’s tax cuts are the wealthy. The top 1 percent of earners see their after-tax income rise by between 10.2 percent and 16 percent. Overall savings would be less than 1 percent.

 

 

This is from the Tax Foundation, which just put out a report saying Trump’s plan would balloon the deficit; Hillary’s plan, not so much.

[seabass]

Thanks for drawing me back in Nip. I was simply suggesting that innovation will be needed to solve climate change.

It's "necessity is the mother of all invention," not prosperity.

Maybe to an extent, but I'm not sure that I completely buy into that. I just don't see that much innovation coming from third world nations (and they are rife full of necessity).

 

My point about the debt was not directed toward either candidate. It was just concern about our situation, which will likely affect our ability to innovate and implement solutions.