Is Global Warming Just A Hoax?

reply to post by donwhite

You are either confused or are changing the subject. You are ignoring the collective “smarts” of 304 million people who now inhabit this 3.8 million square miles of planet Earth. If Congress has 38,000 employees - it does - to help the 535 senators and representatives to make laws for all of us, then I am sure neither you nor I have either the time or resources to “ . . better able to spend . . ” your taxes than you (or I) are able to do. It’s not even apples and oranges. It is more like DAY and NIGHT. Ex: How would you or I know a bridge in St. Paul needs repairs urgently?

It would seem YOU are the one confused. I do not advocate the abolition of taxes. But I do deny any 'logic' (ignorance) that says what I make by working hours of my life or by investing my time or resources does not belong to me. I already stated that there are many examples of things that need to be funded equally by the citizenry: military, roads, public buildings (such as libraries or governmental offices), parks, law enforcement, security (fire department, etc.) just to name a few. These require taxes.

That said, the amount of taxation becomes the issue, as well as the reason for the taxation. Please name one country which has successfully implemented 100% taxation (otherwise known as communism) successfully. Oh, yes, there's China... home of a myriad of human atrocities by the rulers and even more poverty among the citizenry. Russia? Oh, wait, they failed miserably under communism. Cuba? Please, take a little vacation there and come back and tell me how wonderful life there is.

Socialism, which is the limited inclusion of communistic principles into a capitalistic system, does have advantages, and I both recognize and support those advantages. But when socialism becomes communism, those advantages turn to disadvantages quickly. This is the lesson of history.

The US Government has added 100 times as much wealth to the country as all the private entrepreneurs put together.

Who settled Ohio and the rest of the Midwest? People did. Who built their houses? PEOPLE did. Who built the factories where the people could work? PEOPLE did. Who paved the roads? PEOPLE did.

Who settled the West? PEOPLE, who again built homes, built factories, bought and sold and made profits and improved their own lives. Not one government representative ever threw a shovel of dirt, nailed a single piece of wood, nor smoothed out one shovelful of asphalt. They didn't build the factories where people made the money to build nice homes and have nice cars. Henry Ford is more responsible for the latter.

Who bought this trailer I live in? I DID. Not one single penny came to me from the government. Who has laid the foundation to convert it into a house? I DID. Not one government employee or official laid hold on a shovel or poured a single bucket of concrete or laid a single cinder block into place.

Who gives me a job when I need money? PEOPLE. Not the government. Who makes the clothes I wear? PEOPLE. Not the government. Who built my pickup truck? PEOPLE. The government just made that truck more expensive with all the regulations and then offered to guarantee a loan so I would be thankful to them (a loan I did not need because I don't listen to the government).

Yeah, right.

It seems we agree on this: Once it is learned beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 emissions are a danger to our future survival as a species, then CO2 emissions should be contained by what we once lauded as the FREE MARKET but which of late has fallen into the waste bin of history.

Actually, no we do not agree.

In the first place, IF such is proven to be necessary, this would be a project akin to the building of an Interstate highway system. It would be for the benefit of all, with no economically viable product to the average person. Therefore it would by necessity need to be funded via taxation, not by the free market.

Secondly, the free market you have such disdain for is not in the waste bin of history. It is still alive and working, although the actions of government in recent years have all but crippled it. The actions of a government operating under concepts such as the one you profess, that they are there in order to somehow 'save' the people from themselves have led to this mess we are in, not the other way around.

Perhaps better known as the Reagan Revolution. “Government is the problem, not the solution” he pronounced at every opportunity. Also called Reganomics, the discredited trickle down theory. "Get the government OFF your back" he urged! A $15 t. error of judgment (a conservative estimate - no pun intended). A mistake that will haunt all of us for the next 75 years. Thanks but NO thanks, Ronnie. You have more than any single person wrecked the country's economy and maybe the world's too!

I don't know, I remember the country was doing pretty good under Reagan. On the other hand, under George W. Bush, as under Jimmy Carter, the economy collapsed. The single thing these two had in common was an attempt to interfere excessively in the economic system. Bush did it by removing necessary restrictions on runaway capitalism. Carter did it by trying the policies you seem to support. Both interfered with capitalism to an excessive degree and both resulted in disaster.

No person who purchased an owner occupied federally insured home loan mortgage EVER lost a PENNY between 1933 and 1979. None!

Yes, some did. Sorry, that's called 'investment'.

I will agree that FHA worked well during that time period.

This was the era that saw teh creation of suburbia. Of shopping malls. Of satellite office parks. Two government laws made it happen. Not private entrepreneurs. In fact, it was unrestrained private entrepreneurs who wrecked the economy it took 60 years to build and in barely 28 years!

Private entrepreneurs did not invest in businesses? I assume you think all of the investment, all of the stock market, all of the start-up loans were done through government.

I also assume you believe that no private companies were used to provide the materials and the labor that actually created these oases of paradise you speak of? Only government. All of the lumber, the steel, the accessories, provided without any private business or entrepreneur becoming involved... that must have been quite a feat! All of the workers were government employees, too. Amazing!

Get out of dreamland. I think you have finally dug your hole deep enough for me to cover it with dirt. You are either living in some fantasy realm where things magically happen against all known historical fact, or you are trying desperately to convey favorably a concept you, yourself, have a vested interest in. Yeah, it worked for Al Gore, but I wasn't allowed access to Mr. Gore's press conferences or seminars. I am allowed access here, and I just called your post what it is - BS. Sorry.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

It would seem YOU are the one confused. I do not advocate the abolition of taxes. But I do deny any 'logic' that says what I make by working hours of my life or by investing my time or resources does not belong to me.

Depending on your tax bracket, do not tell this to the IRS unless you or it are accompanied by your check for their share.

I already stated that there are many examples of things that need to be funded equally by the citizenry

OK, but what did you really mean by using “equally?" Same amount or same rate?

Please name one country which has successfully implemented 100% taxation (otherwise known as communism) successfully.

Let’s not digress into insomnia-land. Reminds me of the “River of No Return." A 1950s movie with Marilyn Monroe.

Who bought this trailer I live in? I DID. Not one single penny came to me from the government. Who has laid the foundation to convert it into a house? I DID.

Good for you, Mr R/N! Who was it that offered "Blood, Sweat and Tears?"

Who built my pickup truck? PEOPLE. The government just made that truck more expensive with all the regulations and then offered to guarantee a loan so I would be thankful to them (a loan I did not need because I don't listen to the government).

Did you know the Big 3 truck makers CHEATED the American people back in Nixon’s era when EPA rules were adopted? Lawmakers wrote the EPA emissions standards to apply to all non-commercial motor vehicles. They specified "6,000 lbs gross weight or under." That would have brought the popular F100, C100, D100 and whatever the GMC equivalent models were under the same emissions laws as passenger cars. At that time the pickup truck market probably accounted for 20-25% of the total market.

Being too smart by half the Big 3 colluded to raise the GVW rating of their pickups to 6,050 pounds, thereby “defining” their products OUT of the EPA rules. Ipso facto, you now have the F150, C1500, D1500 and whatever the GMC equivalent models are designated. If you are into math Mr R/N, you could probably calculate the number of extra cancer deaths this move by the Big 3 has cost the public over the last 50 years.

I am under the impression that pickups are now under much stricter emission rules but I still do not know if those rules are the same as passenger car rules. A 5.7 liter V8 in a Corvette could be a lot cleaner emissions-wise, that the same engine in a C1500? Pickups and SUVs on p/u chassis now - before '08's $4 gasoline - account for 50% of auto sales. That could be a lot of air pollution we should not have. All for 50 pounds of imagination.

I am not acquainted with the safety features in light trucks that may be the same as those in cars. The crash absorbing re-design and fitting of multiple airbags in cars has reduced the death toll in car accidents SIGNIFICANTLY! You might say 10s of 1000s of lives are saved every year! I do hope light trucks are included.

All those lives were saved by REGULATIONS.

Actually, no we do not agree. In the first place, IF such is proven to be necessary, this would be a project akin to the building of an Interstate highway system. It would be for the benefit of all . . Therefore it would by necessity need to be funded via taxation . . Secondly, the free market you have such disdain for is not in the waste bin of history. It is still alive and working, although the actions of government in recent years have all but crippled it. The actions of a government operating under concepts . . that they are there in order to . . 'save' the people from themselves have led to this mess we are in, not the other way around.

Wow! I’m glad to get this horrible melt-down explained. I was thinking it was all due to selling - say hustling - incomprehensible, stacked derivitives to greedy buyesr AND to the gutting of the regulatory agencies.

On the other hand, under George W. Bush, as under Jimmy Carter, the economy collapsed. The single thing these two had in common was an attempt to interfere excessively in the economic system. Both interfered with capitalism to an excessive degree and both resulted in disaster.

Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976. That was 32 years ago. I do hope you are not laying any part of the current economic calamity on Jimmy Carter? I mean, did not the GOP say he was “inept” in 1980 when the Death Valley Days and GE Theater star beat him?

I’ve accused Bush43 of a lot of things including lying about his Air National Guard time, lying about Iraqi WMDs and authorizing torture, but I have never accused him of “. . an attempt to interfere excessively in the economic system.” I promise!

This must be a Hannity and Colmes joke? Or some ramble from the Miami drug addict, Rush Limbaugh? A/k/a Rash Lameballs. Except that both men - JC and B43 - put their pants on one leg at a time I know nothing else alike between Carter and Bush43. I’ll take Georgia peanuts anytime over Texas cow dung.

I will agree that FHA worked well during that time period.

Thanks.

Get out of dreamland. I think you have finally dug your hole deep enough for me to cover it with dirt. You are either living in some fantasy realm where things magically happen against all known historical fact, or you are trying desperately to convey favorably a concept you, yourself, have a vested interest in. I just called your post what it is - BS. Sorry. TheRedneck

Well, you can only call’em as you see’em. Now, can I go eat supper?

[edit on 1/14/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite

Depending on your tax bracket, do not tell this to the IRS unless you or it are accompanied by your check for their share.

You do seem to have this problem with shades of grey. Yes, I pay taxes. Yes, I understand the need to pay taxes. No, I do not consider my wages to be available in whatever percentage for whatever reason government deems it needed for. I see taxes as a necessary evil, and one that should be kept to a minimum. But, that's for another thread, as we're getting off-topic.

OK, but what did you really mean by using “equally?" Same amount or same rate?

In later years I have come to believe that our present system of progressive tax brackets based on income is pretty fair, if a long wat from perfect. But again, aren't you getting off-topic?

Let’s not digress into insomnia-land.

I agree, let's not. I must point out, however, that you were steering this diversion.

Did you know the Big 3 truck makers CHEATED the American people back in Nixon’s era when EPA rules were adopted?

You actually make a good point about governmental efficiency, thank you. By specifying the 6000 lb. limit, the regulations actually encouraged automakers to make the trucks heavier in order to reduce cost. That's not cheating; that is playing by silly rules.

Back some years ago, I was single and working at a good job. There ws one point where I would bring home less in my paycheck than if I worked an hour extra. In order words, using imaginary figures, if i worked 50 hours, I would make $500 after tax, but if I worked 51 hours I would make $485 after tax. Guess what? I REFUSED to work past that limit! Now, that was cheating according to your viewpoint, but according to mine, it was logical. I worked for money, and if I was going to make less money by working more, I wouldn't do it.

Those EPA emissions standards aren't exactly up to par either. Take the catalytic converter: sure, it drops the amount of CO coming out those tailpipes, but it also emits a great deal of SO2 when it gets a few years old. I'm sure you are familiar with SO2 (sulfur dioxide)... it got a lot of media attention a frew years back when suddenly there was all this sulfuric acid coming down in rainwater and destroying forests. Of course, the media never made that connection that SO2 can convert to H2SO4 under certain conditions.... like presence of oxygen (in the atmosphere), water vapor (in the atmosphere) and radiation (like sunlight). In simpler language,

ACID RAIN HAS BEEN MANDATED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!

To make matters worse, those self-same catalytic converters created a new market for platinum (and later palladium) that never existed before, raising the cost of these materials appreciably. Catalytic converters also account for a substantial chunk of the price of a new car, making them more un-affordable to the average person.

Now there really is a reasonable cause to regulate emissions to some standard, but the government seems to be more interested in making sure lobbyists get well-rewarded for their efforts than allowing new technology to solve problems. New cars are required to have catalytic converters on them, regardless of the amount of emissions they would put out.

I’m glad to get this horrible melt-down explained. I was thinking it was all due to selling - say hustling - incomprehensible, stacked derivitives to greedy buyesr AND to the gutting of the regulatory agencies.

Isn't that what I just said?

Maybe I didn't make it clear that some regulations are required on any capitalistic society in order to prevent exactly what has just happened. I consider those regulations on monopolies and fraud to be part of the economic system.

I’ve accused Bush43 of a lot of things including lying about his Air National Guard time, lying about Iraqi WMDs and authorizing torture, but I have never accused him of “. . an attempt to interfere excessively in the economic system.” I promise!

Well, now you have something else you can accuse him of. IMHO the worst action he took.

Now, can I go eat supper?

No one is stopping you from that except you.

When you get back, perhaps we can get back on-topic?

TheRedneck


[edit on 14-1-2009 by TheRedneck]