Can the newly elected Democratic house just not pass a bill that puts the tax back on to the ACA? Maybe dangle a % for % for Trump's wall or some other stupid compromise.
They could. But no way in hell would the Senate approve it, or Trump sign it into law, and the Democrats don't have a veto-proof House majority.
I'd do it anyways, because it will help hammer in the point that the piles of dead Americans for lack of medical care is their fault. And yes, piles of dead Americans. Upwards of 10,000 Americans per year because of failure to get treatment or delays in getting treatment, the numbers were run back almost 2 years ago when the Repubs started 2017 trying to kill the ACA and what the effects of repealing actually were.
"See, we're trying to help, but these heartless Republicans want to watch Americans die."
Conservatives are not bigoted assholes who want to fuck over poor people for the fun of it (despite what many of the folks on this forum seem to think). They want the same things you all want but they want to give people the ability to earn it themselves rather than having things given to them. It can be brutal, yes, but their philosophy tends to think in terms of individuals rather than groups. That is also why they distrust powerful government.
Neither side ever gets the opportunity to test their theories over any appreciable length of time so I'm resigned to the fact that no political or economic theory will ever be proven one way or the other...
Yes, they are. I've met them in real life.
No, you don't magically give people "the ability to earn it themselves" when they're already running flat out just to survive. "Give 110% effort, and you can live the American dream!". Bullshit.
Define "appreciable length of time"? Because Republicans have repeatedly had 8+ years to try out their theories of no taxation somehow works economic miracles. They had the 1980s, recessions. They had the 2000s, recessions. Scott Walker and Sam Brownback had 7 years of governorship of their states, and turned them to shit for slashing state revenues.
1940s and 1950s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom. 1990s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom.
Basically, taxing the wealthy to give poor people money to buy stuff, does more for the economy than not taxing and letting the wealthy stash it in investments to give corporations money to buy back their own stocks.
That is demonstrable fact. And there have been a heap of government programs that save more money than the programs cost by what the program does, such as research and implementation of increasing energy efficiency.
Henry Ford had the right of it "I pay my workers well so they can buy my cars". If corporations won't do it, it should be government's responsibility to do it. This is an imbalance in the structure of society.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen.
So what do you believe in? The tyranny of the minority? Because that's what we are having.
When you're getting ballot referendums with 80 or 90% support, and you decline to implement those referendums, you'd better have a damn good reason.
I would be looking into recall elections because that's clearly not following the will of the electorate. I would not be surprised if those states disallow them, however.
These are not policy measures barely getting 51% support.
Ouch, must've touched a nerve. You're 100% right. We should just rob the wealthy and give it to the poor. I'm sure they won't just spend it on overtaxed cigarettes and drugs. Let's talk about some kind of healthcare plan but don't give me this bullshit about the rich paying for it because it won't happen. I'm going to have to pay for it and dont fucking lie to me...
You want to talk about inequalities in healthcare? We'll spend millions of dollars trying to extend the life of one person for a few years that has no chance of long-term survival while letting thousands die in underdeveloped countries where a few hundred dollars could extend their lives by decades. How is that fair?
Can the newly elected Democratic house just not pass a bill that puts the tax back on to the ACA? Maybe dangle a % for % for Trump's wall or some other stupid compromise.
They could. But no way in hell would the Senate approve it, or Trump sign it into law, and the Democrats don't have a veto-proof House majority.
I'd do it anyways, because it will help hammer in the point that the piles of dead Americans for lack of medical care is their fault. And yes, piles of dead Americans. Upwards of 10,000 Americans per year because of failure to get treatment or delays in getting treatment, the numbers were run back almost 2 years ago when the Repubs started 2017 trying to kill the ACA and what the effects of repealing actually were.
"See, we're trying to help, but these heartless Republicans want to watch Americans die."
Conservatives are not bigoted assholes who want to fuck over poor people for the fun of it (despite what many of the folks on this forum seem to think). They want the same things you all want but they want to give people the ability to earn it themselves rather than having things given to them. It can be brutal, yes, but their philosophy tends to think in terms of individuals rather than groups. That is also why they distrust powerful government.
Neither side ever gets the opportunity to test their theories over any appreciable length of time so I'm resigned to the fact that no political or economic theory will ever be proven one way or the other...
Yes, they are. I've met them in real life.
No, you don't magically give people "the ability to earn it themselves" when they're already running flat out just to survive. "Give 110% effort, and you can live the American dream!". Bullshit.
Define "appreciable length of time"? Because Republicans have repeatedly had 8+ years to try out their theories of no taxation somehow works economic miracles. They had the 1980s, recessions. They had the 2000s, recessions. Scott Walker and Sam Brownback had 7 years of governorship of their states, and turned them to shit for slashing state revenues.
1940s and 1950s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom. 1990s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom.
Basically, taxing the wealthy to give poor people money to buy stuff, does more for the economy than not taxing and letting the wealthy stash it in investments to give corporations money to buy back their own stocks.
That is demonstrable fact. And there have been a heap of government programs that save more money than the programs cost by what the program does, such as research and implementation of increasing energy efficiency.
Henry Ford had the right of it "I pay my workers well so they can buy my cars". If corporations won't do it, it should be government's responsibility to do it. This is an imbalance in the structure of society.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen.
So what do you believe in? The tyranny of the minority? Because that's what we are having.
When you're getting ballot referendums with 80 or 90% support, and you decline to implement those referendums, you'd better have a damn good reason.
I would be looking into recall elections because that's clearly not following the will of the electorate. I would not be surprised if those states disallow them, however.
These are not policy measures barely getting 51% support.
Ouch, must've touched a nerve. You're 100% right. We should just rob the wealthy and give it to the poor. I'm sure they won't just spend it on overtaxed cigarettes and drugs. Let's talk about some kind of healthcare plan but don't give me this bullshit about the rich paying for it because it won't happen. I'm going to have to pay for it and dont fucking lie to me...
Lots of people help pay for alot of things. But what I seem to notice in all general conversations about politics is that only conservatives seem to be allowed to complain about (or, at the very least, are the only ones taken seriously) about how money is spent. Someone on the right can complain about food stamps or healthcare costs til the cows come home and be taken pretty damn seriously, but the moment someone on the left points out that our military is about 3 or 4 times larger than it needs to be to protect us, or that corporate welfare accounts for about 40% more of the budget than social welfare like housing and food stamps, we're basically laughed out of the room.
Can the newly elected Democratic house just not pass a bill that puts the tax back on to the ACA? Maybe dangle a % for % for Trump's wall or some other stupid compromise.
They could. But no way in hell would the Senate approve it, or Trump sign it into law, and the Democrats don't have a veto-proof House majority.
I'd do it anyways, because it will help hammer in the point that the piles of dead Americans for lack of medical care is their fault. And yes, piles of dead Americans. Upwards of 10,000 Americans per year because of failure to get treatment or delays in getting treatment, the numbers were run back almost 2 years ago when the Repubs started 2017 trying to kill the ACA and what the effects of repealing actually were.
"See, we're trying to help, but these heartless Republicans want to watch Americans die."
Conservatives are not bigoted assholes who want to fuck over poor people for the fun of it (despite what many of the folks on this forum seem to think). They want the same things you all want but they want to give people the ability to earn it themselves rather than having things given to them. It can be brutal, yes, but their philosophy tends to think in terms of individuals rather than groups. That is also why they distrust powerful government.
Neither side ever gets the opportunity to test their theories over any appreciable length of time so I'm resigned to the fact that no political or economic theory will ever be proven one way or the other...
Yes, they are. I've met them in real life.
No, you don't magically give people "the ability to earn it themselves" when they're already running flat out just to survive. "Give 110% effort, and you can live the American dream!". Bullshit.
Define "appreciable length of time"? Because Republicans have repeatedly had 8+ years to try out their theories of no taxation somehow works economic miracles. They had the 1980s, recessions. They had the 2000s, recessions. Scott Walker and Sam Brownback had 7 years of governorship of their states, and turned them to shit for slashing state revenues.
1940s and 1950s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom. 1990s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom.
Basically, taxing the wealthy to give poor people money to buy stuff, does more for the economy than not taxing and letting the wealthy stash it in investments to give corporations money to buy back their own stocks.
That is demonstrable fact. And there have been a heap of government programs that save more money than the programs cost by what the program does, such as research and implementation of increasing energy efficiency.
Henry Ford had the right of it "I pay my workers well so they can buy my cars". If corporations won't do it, it should be government's responsibility to do it. This is an imbalance in the structure of society.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen.
So what do you believe in? The tyranny of the minority? Because that's what we are having.
When you're getting ballot referendums with 80 or 90% support, and you decline to implement those referendums, you'd better have a damn good reason.
I would be looking into recall elections because that's clearly not following the will of the electorate. I would not be surprised if those states disallow them, however.
These are not policy measures barely getting 51% support.
Ouch, must've touched a nerve. You're 100% right. We should just rob the wealthy and give it to the poor. I'm sure they won't just spend it on overtaxed cigarettes and drugs. Let's talk about some kind of healthcare plan but don't give me this bullshit about the rich paying for it because it won't happen. I'm going to have to pay for it and dont fucking lie to me...
Lots of people help pay for alot of things. But what I seem to notice in all general conversations about politics is that only conservatives seem to be allowed to complain about (or, at the very least, are the only ones taken seriously) when they complain about how money is spent. Someone on the right can complain about food stamps or healthcare costs til the cows come home and be taken pretty damn seriously, but the moment someone on the left points out that our military is about 3 or 4 times larger than it needs to be to protect us, or that corporate welfare accounts for about 40% more of the budget than social welfare like housing and food stamps, we're basically laughed out of the room.
Give me a plan where welfare recipients earn their payments. There are all kinds of jobs/services that could be covered by welfare recipients. Do they deserve free money because they exist?
Can the newly elected Democratic house just not pass a bill that puts the tax back on to the ACA? Maybe dangle a % for % for Trump's wall or some other stupid compromise.
They could. But no way in hell would the Senate approve it, or Trump sign it into law, and the Democrats don't have a veto-proof House majority.
I'd do it anyways, because it will help hammer in the point that the piles of dead Americans for lack of medical care is their fault. And yes, piles of dead Americans. Upwards of 10,000 Americans per year because of failure to get treatment or delays in getting treatment, the numbers were run back almost 2 years ago when the Repubs started 2017 trying to kill the ACA and what the effects of repealing actually were.
"See, we're trying to help, but these heartless Republicans want to watch Americans die."
Conservatives are not bigoted assholes who want to fuck over poor people for the fun of it (despite what many of the folks on this forum seem to think). They want the same things you all want but they want to give people the ability to earn it themselves rather than having things given to them. It can be brutal, yes, but their philosophy tends to think in terms of individuals rather than groups. That is also why they distrust powerful government.
Neither side ever gets the opportunity to test their theories over any appreciable length of time so I'm resigned to the fact that no political or economic theory will ever be proven one way or the other...
Yes, they are. I've met them in real life.
No, you don't magically give people "the ability to earn it themselves" when they're already running flat out just to survive. "Give 110% effort, and you can live the American dream!". Bullshit.
Define "appreciable length of time"? Because Republicans have repeatedly had 8+ years to try out their theories of no taxation somehow works economic miracles. They had the 1980s, recessions. They had the 2000s, recessions. Scott Walker and Sam Brownback had 7 years of governorship of their states, and turned them to shit for slashing state revenues.
1940s and 1950s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom. 1990s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom.
Basically, taxing the wealthy to give poor people money to buy stuff, does more for the economy than not taxing and letting the wealthy stash it in investments to give corporations money to buy back their own stocks.
That is demonstrable fact. And there have been a heap of government programs that save more money than the programs cost by what the program does, such as research and implementation of increasing energy efficiency.
Henry Ford had the right of it "I pay my workers well so they can buy my cars". If corporations won't do it, it should be government's responsibility to do it. This is an imbalance in the structure of society.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen.
So what do you believe in? The tyranny of the minority? Because that's what we are having.
When you're getting ballot referendums with 80 or 90% support, and you decline to implement those referendums, you'd better have a damn good reason.
I would be looking into recall elections because that's clearly not following the will of the electorate. I would not be surprised if those states disallow them, however.
These are not policy measures barely getting 51% support.
Ouch, must've touched a nerve. You're 100% right. We should just rob the wealthy and give it to the poor. I'm sure they won't just spend it on overtaxed cigarettes and drugs. Let's talk about some kind of healthcare plan but don't give me this bullshit about the rich paying for it because it won't happen. I'm going to have to pay for it and dont fucking lie to me...
Lots of people help pay for alot of things. But what I seem to notice in all general conversations about politics is that only conservatives seem to be allowed to complain about (or, at the very least, are the only ones taken seriously) when they complain about how money is spent. Someone on the right can complain about food stamps or healthcare costs til the cows come home and be taken pretty damn seriously, but the moment someone on the left points out that our military is about 3 or 4 times larger than it needs to be to protect us, or that corporate welfare accounts for about 40% more of the budget than social welfare like housing and food stamps, we're basically laughed out of the room.
Give me a plan where welfare recipients earn their payments. There are all kinds of jobs/services that could be covered by welfare recipients. Do they deserve free money because they exist?
As someone who has been temporarily unemployed within the last six months, and can say with 100% certainty that this idea that people are just getting handed free money each month with no stipulations is just a flat-out myth. You can't even get unemployment in most places if you haven't worked in the past 6 months, and what you get is about 45% of your pay over that time period with TONS of stipulations you have to meet, along with a set end-date when benefits run out.
As for food stamps, we are dealing with the same issue, but here are some numbers:
1.) Nearly three-quarters of adults who participate in SNAP in a typical month work either that month or within a year of that month of participation. Over half of individuals who were participating in SNAP in a typical month in mid-2012 were working in that month. Furthermore, 74 percent worked in the year before or after that month (in the 25-month period). Rates were even higher when work among other household members is counted: 81 percent of SNAP households with a non-disabled adult, and 87 percent of households with children and a non-disabled adult, included at least one member who worked in this 25-month period.
2.) SNAP participants often experience periods of joblessness and are more likely to participate in SNAP when they are out of work. Individuals who participated in SNAP at any point over a 3.5-year period from 2009 through 2013 worked most months over this period, but were more likely to participate when they were out of work. They participated in SNAP in over two-fifths of the months that they were working (44 percent). They participated in SNAP in 62 percent of the months in which they were not working, a time when their income was lower and their need for help affording food was higher.
3.) SNAP participation among non-disabled adults is often short term, but those who receive SNAP for longer periods still work most of the time. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the adults who participated in SNAP at some point over the roughly 3.5-year period that this part of our analysis examined received it for a total of less than two years. Regardless of how long these adults participated in SNAP, however, they worked in the majority of months in which they received SNAP assistance. Over one-third of non-disabled adults worked in every month they participated in SNAP.
4.) SNAP participants who are consistently out of work often face barriers to work or have caretaking responsibilities. About one-quarter of adults who participated in SNAP in a given month in 2012 did not work within a year. Of those adults, most cited caretaking responsibilities or health conditions as the reasons they were not working. These adults were also more likely to lack a high school degree or to report a work-limiting health condition than those who worked. (While this analysis is limited to adults who do not receive disability benefits, many individuals with significant impairments and other health conditions that limit their ability to work do not receive such benefits.)
Even taking all that into account, food stamps account for precisely 1.8% of the federal budget.
This idea that we're a '3rd world country' or a 'Banana Republic' is hilarious to me. Like the fucking poor in this country aren't better off than the middle class in 75% of the other countries on this planet. We're worried about people who would rather spend their meager income on booze, cigarettes and drugs than on their kids, folks with whom a major problem is obesity for God's sake, than on entire countries where the next Einstein or Newton are dying of starvation or neglect rather than contributing to the future of humanity. It's a joke!
This idea that we're a '3rd world country' or a 'Banana Republic' is hilarious to me. Like the fucking poor in this country aren't better off than the middle class in 75% of the other countries on this planet. We're worried about people who would rather spend their meager income on booze, cigarettes and drugs than on their kids, folks with whom a major problem is obesity for God's sake, than on entire countries where the next Einstein or Newton are dying of starvation or neglect rather than contributing to the future of humanity. It's a joke!
I think you're probably grossly overstating the amount of people on public assistance who are spending all their money on booze, cigarettes and drugs. And the reason alot of them are obese is because healthier food is WAY more expensive, which everyone knows.
Can the newly elected Democratic house just not pass a bill that puts the tax back on to the ACA? Maybe dangle a % for % for Trump's wall or some other stupid compromise.
They could. But no way in hell would the Senate approve it, or Trump sign it into law, and the Democrats don't have a veto-proof House majority.
I'd do it anyways, because it will help hammer in the point that the piles of dead Americans for lack of medical care is their fault. And yes, piles of dead Americans. Upwards of 10,000 Americans per year because of failure to get treatment or delays in getting treatment, the numbers were run back almost 2 years ago when the Repubs started 2017 trying to kill the ACA and what the effects of repealing actually were.
"See, we're trying to help, but these heartless Republicans want to watch Americans die."
Conservatives are not bigoted assholes who want to fuck over poor people for the fun of it (despite what many of the folks on this forum seem to think). They want the same things you all want but they want to give people the ability to earn it themselves rather than having things given to them. It can be brutal, yes, but their philosophy tends to think in terms of individuals rather than groups. That is also why they distrust powerful government.
Neither side ever gets the opportunity to test their theories over any appreciable length of time so I'm resigned to the fact that no political or economic theory will ever be proven one way or the other...
Yes, they are. I've met them in real life.
No, you don't magically give people "the ability to earn it themselves" when they're already running flat out just to survive. "Give 110% effort, and you can live the American dream!". Bullshit.
Define "appreciable length of time"? Because Republicans have repeatedly had 8+ years to try out their theories of no taxation somehow works economic miracles. They had the 1980s, recessions. They had the 2000s, recessions. Scott Walker and Sam Brownback had 7 years of governorship of their states, and turned them to shit for slashing state revenues.
1940s and 1950s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom. 1990s, increase taxes, cut government spending slightly, boom.
Basically, taxing the wealthy to give poor people money to buy stuff, does more for the economy than not taxing and letting the wealthy stash it in investments to give corporations money to buy back their own stocks.
That is demonstrable fact. And there have been a heap of government programs that save more money than the programs cost by what the program does, such as research and implementation of increasing energy efficiency.
Henry Ford had the right of it "I pay my workers well so they can buy my cars". If corporations won't do it, it should be government's responsibility to do it. This is an imbalance in the structure of society.
I don't believe in democracy. I somewhat believe in the system we have in the USA, but not even that completely, and that is not 'democracy' anyway, it's a representative republic. The American brand of democracy has checks and balances that ensure the tyranny of majority doesn't happen.
So what do you believe in? The tyranny of the minority? Because that's what we are having.
When you're getting ballot referendums with 80 or 90% support, and you decline to implement those referendums, you'd better have a damn good reason.
I would be looking into recall elections because that's clearly not following the will of the electorate. I would not be surprised if those states disallow them, however.
These are not policy measures barely getting 51% support.
Ouch, must've touched a nerve. You're 100% right. We should just rob the wealthy and give it to the poor. I'm sure they won't just spend it on overtaxed cigarettes and drugs. Let's talk about some kind of healthcare plan but don't give me this bullshit about the rich paying for it because it won't happen. I'm going to have to pay for it and dont fucking lie to me...
Lots of people help pay for alot of things. But what I seem to notice in all general conversations about politics is that only conservatives seem to be allowed to complain about (or, at the very least, are the only ones taken seriously) when they complain about how money is spent. Someone on the right can complain about food stamps or healthcare costs til the cows come home and be taken pretty damn seriously, but the moment someone on the left points out that our military is about 3 or 4 times larger than it needs to be to protect us, or that corporate welfare accounts for about 40% more of the budget than social welfare like housing and food stamps, we're basically laughed out of the room.
Give me a plan where welfare recipients earn their payments. There are all kinds of jobs/services that could be covered by welfare recipients. Do they deserve free money because they exist?
As someone who has been temporarily unemployed within the last six months, and can say with 100% certainty that this idea that people are just getting handed free money each month with no stipulations is just a flat-out myth. You can't even get unemployment in most places if you haven't worked in the past 6 months, and what you get is about 45% of your pay over that time period with TONS of stipulations you have to meet, along with a set end-date when benefits run out.
As for food stamps, we are dealing with the same issue, but here are some numbers:
1.) Nearly three-quarters of adults who participate in SNAP in a typical month work either that month or within a year of that month of participation. Over half of individuals who were participating in SNAP in a typical month in mid-2012 were working in that month. Furthermore, 74 percent worked in the year before or after that month (in the 25-month period). Rates were even higher when work among other household members is counted: 81 percent of SNAP households with a non-disabled adult, and 87 percent of households with children and a non-disabled adult, included at least one member who worked in this 25-month period.
2.) SNAP participants often experience periods of joblessness and are more likely to participate in SNAP when they are out of work. Individuals who participated in SNAP at any point over a 3.5-year period from 2009 through 2013 worked most months over this period, but were more likely to participate when they were out of work. They participated in SNAP in over two-fifths of the months that they were working (44 percent). They participated in SNAP in 62 percent of the months in which they were not working, a time when their income was lower and their need for help affording food was higher.
3.) SNAP participation among non-disabled adults is often short term, but those who receive SNAP for longer periods still work most of the time. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the adults who participated in SNAP at some point over the roughly 3.5-year period that this part of our analysis examined received it for a total of less than two years. Regardless of how long these adults participated in SNAP, however, they worked in the majority of months in which they received SNAP assistance. Over one-third of non-disabled adults worked in every month they participated in SNAP.
4.) SNAP participants who are consistently out of work often face barriers to work or have caretaking responsibilities. About one-quarter of adults who participated in SNAP in a given month in 2012 did not work within a year. Of those adults, most cited caretaking responsibilities or health conditions as the reasons they were not working. These adults were also more likely to lack a high school degree or to report a work-limiting health condition than those who worked. (While this analysis is limited to adults who do not receive disability benefits, many individuals with significant impairments and other health conditions that limit their ability to work do not receive such benefits.)
Even taking all that into account, food stamps account for precisely 1.8% of the federal budget.
Maybe things have changed over the years. I'm colored by the time I spent in college in the U.P. where folks were trying to trade me their foodstamps for booze. That was way back in the 80's but it definitely left an impression on me. If things HAVE changed it certainly isn't advertised enough...
Some people on medicaid, FNS money, and disability have earned (paid into the system) that money even before they use that. I count myself among those, and it;s been hell trying to get even a damn nickel and the fight is still not over. If my own company grossed over $100,000,000, paid millions of dollars in taxes over a 12 year span, I figure I should be able to get help now when I am not working anymore, lost everything, and in fact can't. Should I not be able to get help after all that? I think everyone deserves a helping hand, and if they can;t get back up, I think the money is there, or should be there regardless. Banks have been cheating people out of their homes, BIG corporations and drug companies have skimped on workplace rights, health rights, and it is in my eyes a human rights violation of the US. In fact, we wrote the powerless UN a letter on just that.
Some people on medicaid, FNS money, and disability have earned (paid into the system) that money even before they use that. I count myself among those, and it;s been hell trying to get even a damn nickel and the fight is still not over. If my own company grossed over $100,000,000, paid millions of dollars in taxes over a 12 year span, I figure I should be able to get help now when I am not working anymore, lost everything, and in fact can't. Should I not be able to get help after all that? I think everyone deserves a helping hand, and if they can;t get back up, I think the money is there, or should be there regardless. Banks have been cheating people out of their homes, BIG corporations and drug companies have skimped on workplace rights, health rights, and it is in my eyes a human rights violation of the US. In fact, we wrote the powerless UN a letter on just that.
I've paid into unemployment on every paycheck I've earned since I was 16 years old. The idea that I'm not entitled to less than half my pay for a couple of months after getting screwed over at work is laughable to me. The word entitlement itself has become a pejorative. But the definition of the word is very simple, at least in the context we should be looking at it as:
"the amount to which a person has a right"
We pay into unemployment. We pay into Social Security. We pay into Medicare. All our lives, every two weeks. How the right has twisted the word "entitlement" to mean something negative is part of the problem. It is simply as it's definition says it is. The word needs to either be taken back, or replaced with something with less of a stigma.
A small scale mom and pop solution isn't going to get it done. You and I can make a difference but we need action on these big companies more than anything. These companies donate to Republicans who happily take bribes to get them on board with killing us.
Some people on medicaid, FNS money, and disability have earned (paid into the system) that money even before they use that. I count myself among those, and it;s been hell trying to get even a damn nickel and the fight is still not over. If my own company grossed over $100,000,000, paid millions of dollars in taxes over a 12 year span, I figure I should be able to get help now when I am not working anymore, lost everything, and in fact can't. Should I not be able to get help after all that? I think everyone deserves a helping hand, and if they can;t get back up, I think the money is there, or should be there regardless. Banks have been cheating people out of their homes, BIG corporations and drug companies have skimped on workplace rights, health rights, and it is in my eyes a human rights violation of the US. In fact, we wrote the powerless UN a letter on just that.
That sucks @Zaghoul. The whole point of those systems was that they take part of your pay in order to cover them. The bullshit is that they spent that money on other things. It's a complete crock of a shell-game that they're playing with our money. The Republicans want to not spend the non-existent money and the Democrats want you to believe that it's still there and the Republicans want to destroy it, but the truth is that both parties tapped into those funds (Johnson was the 1st to pay for Vietnam, but Reagan tapped into it too) and it doesn't exist anymore in a real sense except as a promise to pay in the future. No real money is there and it's just another tax.
A small scale mom and pop solution isn't going to get it done. You and I can make a difference but we need action on these big companies more than anything. These companies donate to Republicans who happily take bribes to get them on board with killing us.
Yeah, because Republicans in the US control how much oil China and India consume. Dude, take another hit...
According to this report, from 2017, the US is still number one in oil use but we're trending down. Good luck convincing China, Japan, Russia, India and the developing nations to trim their use back. The world in whole is using 2% MORE per year even with us and Europe (barring Russia) trending downward.
Some people on medicaid, FNS money, and disability have earned (paid into the system) that money even before they use that. I count myself among those, and it;s been hell trying to get even a damn nickel and the fight is still not over. If my own company grossed over $100,000,000, paid millions of dollars in taxes over a 12 year span, I figure I should be able to get help now when I am not working anymore, lost everything, and in fact can't. Should I not be able to get help after all that? I think everyone deserves a helping hand, and if they can;t get back up, I think the money is there, or should be there regardless. Banks have been cheating people out of their homes, BIG corporations and drug companies have skimped on workplace rights, health rights, and it is in my eyes a human rights violation of the US. In fact, we wrote the powerless UN a letter on just that.
I've paid into unemployment on every paycheck I've earned since I was 16 years old. The idea that I'm not entitled to less than half my pay for a couple of months after getting screwed over at work is laughable to me. The word entitlement itself has become a pejorative. But the definition of the word is very simple, at least in the context we should be looking at it as:
"the amount to which a person has a right"
We pay into unemployment. We pay into Social Security. We pay into Medicare. All our lives, every two weeks. How the right has twisted the word "entitlement" to mean something negative is part of the problem. It is simply as it's definition says it is. The word needs to either be taken back, or replaced with something with less of a stigma.
I agree with you JJ. The powers that be already spent that money though. That's the crux of the problem.
The money we put into the system should have been put into individual accounts for each person, That's the way it was sold back in the day, but that's not what happened. Instead it was all pooled together and became so large that it was too tempting not to use for other purposes. Just like my mom and dads pension funds were used to save Chrysler back in the Iacocca years. They weren't asked if they wanted that money gambled, their union made that choice for them. It worked out ok but that doesn't make it right.
Except the majority is with the libersl position when it comes to immigration and global warming...
Also global warming isn't a policy preference. It's a scientific fact. conservatives in the pockets of Big Oil are not trying to promote a different policy preference; they are trying to dupe the public into not believing the science, because if the public understood the facts, they would have policy preferences that would not be great for Big Oil.
Btw your fantastical description of representative government only works if there is real political accountability for the representatives. So it's telling that the GOP is working hard to undermine political accountability...
The so-called solutions to global warming are what I'm talking about, not the fact of global warming.
Dude, I don't know what planet you're living on, but there is no kind of debate going on between Republicans and Democrats over how to address global warming. The nutjob conspiracy theorists with their heads in the sand denying that climate change is even happening, and generally attacking science to provide intellectual cover for it, have completely taken over the GOP.
I would LOVE to have an adult conversation about the pros and cons of this or that policy to address climate change. Is a carbon tax a bad idea? Great, let's hear some other ideas from conservatives! I honestly think they would have good ideas. I mean, there used to be conservatives who cared about the environment. But now, conservatives are not producing any ideas. Conservatives are ostracized if they don't hew to the party line that "climate change is a hoax" or "the science isn't clear" or somesuch BS. (Cripes, they shut down the goddam Weekly Standard!!)
Whenever conservatives decide to pull their heads out of the butt-cheeks of oil-company executives sand and have a real conversation about solutions, the rest of the world is long since ready...
Well you can debate me I guess if that's a way to vent your frustrations. Personally I think that we need to find ways to deal with it myself. Even if Europe and the US are able to somehow curb carbon emissions (doubtful) there is no way short of war we're going to force the developing countries to tow the line. Am I wrong?
Well you may not be entirely wrong, but close to it . The COP24 talks in Poland about implementing the Paris Agreement have just concluded. I wouldn't say they've been a failure, but they've achieved much less than they could have done. It is true that the desire of certain smaller countries for 'flexibility' was one of the issues to deal with and that's partly about wanting the ability to emit carbon if they deem it necessary (though mainly it's about the amount of money made available by the richer nations). However, a far, far bigger problem was the desire of the richer oil producing countries (the US working with Russia and Saudi Arabia like one big happy family - who would have thought it ...) to keep the world hooked on oil in order to help themselves.
I won't say a lot about the blind greed associated with this type of thinking, but can't resist a small dig. Even within the lifetime of many of the current leaders, let alone their children, the costs of climate change will outweigh the benefits of continuing to use carbon-based fuels - and those costs will continue for a very long time thereafter.
Getting back to the issue though, you seem to be under the impression that developing countries want to adopt the US model and I don't think that's the case at all. Not only can they see the environmental costs associated with that, but installing a new fossil-fuel based economy makes no economic sense anyway. There's an argument that, where you already have facilities, you should continue to use them during a transitional period - but building new such facilities (like the coal-fired electricity plants the US is championing abroad) is the equivalent of burning money.
I agree there are definitely legitimate debates between left and right about the extent to which you make social provision. At the extreme some people do believe that things like armies, roads and sewers should be left up to cooperating individuals to provide and the State should not exist at all. That's not a widespread view even in the US, but there is a genuine discussion about how far the State should go in providing things (and taxing people to do that).
However, where political dogma ignores science and results in outcomes which are both demonstrably poor quality and expensive I think the answer is clear - change the dogma. That's certainly the case in health care and certainly the case in dealing with climate change. The reasons that the US currently has the policies on these issues it does is that: - elected representatives are paid to vote in a particular way and insulated from the impact on them personally of failed policies. - campaigns by vested interests are run to try and convince the public to ignore clear evidence on these issues.
Except the majority is with the libersl position when it comes to immigration and global warming...
Also global warming isn't a policy preference. It's a scientific fact. conservatives in the pockets of Big Oil are not trying to promote a different policy preference; they are trying to dupe the public into not believing the science, because if the public understood the facts, they would have policy preferences that would not be great for Big Oil.
Btw your fantastical description of representative government only works if there is real political accountability for the representatives. So it's telling that the GOP is working hard to undermine political accountability...
The so-called solutions to global warming are what I'm talking about, not the fact of global warming.
Dude, I don't know what planet you're living on, but there is no kind of debate going on between Republicans and Democrats over how to address global warming. The nutjob conspiracy theorists with their heads in the sand denying that climate change is even happening, and generally attacking science to provide intellectual cover for it, have completely taken over the GOP.
I would LOVE to have an adult conversation about the pros and cons of this or that policy to address climate change. Is a carbon tax a bad idea? Great, let's hear some other ideas from conservatives! I honestly think they would have good ideas. I mean, there used to be conservatives who cared about the environment. But now, conservatives are not producing any ideas. Conservatives are ostracized if they don't hew to the party line that "climate change is a hoax" or "the science isn't clear" or somesuch BS. (Cripes, they shut down the goddam Weekly Standard!!)
Whenever conservatives decide to pull their heads out of the butt-cheeks of oil-company executives sand and have a real conversation about solutions, the rest of the world is long since ready...
Well you can debate me I guess if that's a way to vent your frustrations. Personally I think that we need to find ways to deal with it myself. Even if Europe and the US are able to somehow curb carbon emissions (doubtful) there is no way short of war we're going to force the developing countries to tow the line. Am I wrong?
Well you may not be entirely wrong, but close to it . The COP24 talks in Poland about implementing the Paris Agreement have just concluded. I wouldn't say they've been a failure, but they've achieved much less than they could have done. It is true that the desire of certain smaller countries for 'flexibility' was one of the issues to deal with and that's partly about wanting the ability to emit carbon if they deem it necessary (though mainly it's about the amount of money made available by the richer nations). However, a far, far bigger problem was the desire of the richer oil producing countries (the US working with Russia and Saudi Arabia like one big happy family - who would have thought it ...) to keep the world hooked on oil in order to help themselves.
I won't say a lot about the blind greed associated with this type of thinking, but can't resist a small dig. Even within the lifetime of many of the current leaders, let alone their children, the costs of climate change will outweigh the benefits of continuing to use carbon-based fuels - and those costs will continue for a very long time thereafter.
Getting back to the issue though, you seem to be under the impression that developing countries want to adopt the US model and I don't think that's the case at all. Not only can they see the environmental costs associated with that, but installing a new fossil-fuel based economy makes no economic sense anyway. There's an argument that, where you already have facilities, you should continue to use them during a transitional period - but building new such facilities (like the coal-fired electricity plants the US is championing abroad) is the equivalent of burning money.
I agree there are definitely legitimate debates between left and right about the extent to which you make social provision. At the extreme some people do believe that things like armies, roads and sewers should be left up to cooperating individuals to provide and the State should not exist at all. That's not a widespread view even in the US, but there is a genuine discussion about how far the State should go in providing things (and taxing people to do that).
However, where political dogma ignores science and results in outcomes which are both demonstrably poor quality and expensive I think the answer is clear - change the dogma. That's certainly the case in health care and certainly the case in dealing with climate change. The reasons that the US currently has the policies on these issues it does is that: - elected representatives are paid to vote in a particular way and insulated from the impact on them personally of failed policies. - campaigns by vested interests are run to try and convince the public to ignore clear evidence on these issues.
Democracy is a terrible forum to take up these issues, however. France is a perfect example of what happens when it's 'you' that has to make the sacrifice instead of 'them'. That same result will be seen in every 'democracy' when the real price to be paid is revealed. The only solution IMHO is a cost-effective alternative. That is where our resources should be allocated.
According to this report, from 2017, the US is still number one in oil use but we're trending down. Good luck convincing China, Japan, Russia, India and the developing nations to trim their use back. The world in whole is using 2% MORE per year even with us and Europe (barring Russia) trending downward.
It will happen. China (particularly) and India are interesting examples because they had already started to invest heavily in fossil-fuel technologies before the problem of climate change was widely recognized. China is still investing in some new coal plants, but renewable investments are now much larger. The main reason why the cost of solar power has reduced by about 75% in the last 10 years is the Chinese investment in that - and they've benefited from that by effectively establishing a monopoly on the production of solar panels. This article gives a quick summary about the scale of their investment.
For the least developed countries, there's no incentive to try and build the sort of centralized energy systems that all Western countries have. I'm involved in some of the work trying to move away from that in the UK, but that's not easy to do. However, if you were starting from scratch you would no longer want to design in a system based around centralized generation and distribution. Instead you would want smaller-scale local generation, based on renewable technologies - and that's the system that the least developed countries will jump straight to rather than going through the fossil fuel stage as China has done.
Interestingly enough, petroleum is used for far more than just fuel. It's used as a feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics, lubricants, asphalt, sealants, and likely more stuff than even I know about. The petroleum companies would not go out of business if alternative fuels were discovered. The price of oil would go up as oil use goes down so they'd still be among the most wealthy companies.
I'm certain they know that too. A lot of their research money and the research money of chemical companies (such as the one I work for) are being spent on finding alternative energy sources. I know this by firsthand knowledge, not speculation.
According to this report, from 2017, the US is still number one in oil use but we're trending down. Good luck convincing China, Japan, Russia, India and the developing nations to trim their use back. The world in whole is using 2% MORE per year even with us and Europe (barring Russia) trending downward.
It will happen. China (particularly) and India are interesting examples because they had already started to invest heavily in fossil-fuel technologies before the problem of climate change was widely recognized. China is still investing in some new coal plants, but renewable investments are now much larger. The main reason why the cost of solar power has reduced by about 75% in the last 10 years is the Chinese investment in that - and they've benefited from that by effectively establishing a monopoly on the production of solar panels. This article gives a quick summary about the scale of their investment.
For the least developed countries, there's no incentive to try and build the sort of centralized energy systems that all Western countries have. I'm involved in some of the work trying to move away from that in the UK, but that's not easy to do. However, if you were starting from scratch you would no longer want to design in a system based around centralized generation and distribution. Instead you would want smaller-scale local generation, based on renewable technologies - and that's the system that the least developed countries will jump straight to rather than going through the fossil fuel stage as China has done.
I love this forum. I would never have access to this kind of information anywhere else!
Except the majority is with the libersl position when it comes to immigration and global warming...
Also global warming isn't a policy preference. It's a scientific fact. conservatives in the pockets of Big Oil are not trying to promote a different policy preference; they are trying to dupe the public into not believing the science, because if the public understood the facts, they would have policy preferences that would not be great for Big Oil.
Btw your fantastical description of representative government only works if there is real political accountability for the representatives. So it's telling that the GOP is working hard to undermine political accountability...
The so-called solutions to global warming are what I'm talking about, not the fact of global warming.
Dude, I don't know what planet you're living on, but there is no kind of debate going on between Republicans and Democrats over how to address global warming. The nutjob conspiracy theorists with their heads in the sand denying that climate change is even happening, and generally attacking science to provide intellectual cover for it, have completely taken over the GOP.
I would LOVE to have an adult conversation about the pros and cons of this or that policy to address climate change. Is a carbon tax a bad idea? Great, let's hear some other ideas from conservatives! I honestly think they would have good ideas. I mean, there used to be conservatives who cared about the environment. But now, conservatives are not producing any ideas. Conservatives are ostracized if they don't hew to the party line that "climate change is a hoax" or "the science isn't clear" or somesuch BS. (Cripes, they shut down the goddam Weekly Standard!!)
Whenever conservatives decide to pull their heads out of the butt-cheeks of oil-company executives sand and have a real conversation about solutions, the rest of the world is long since ready...
Well you can debate me I guess if that's a way to vent your frustrations. Personally I think that we need to find ways to deal with it myself. Even if Europe and the US are able to somehow curb carbon emissions (doubtful) there is no way short of war we're going to force the developing countries to tow the line. Am I wrong?
Well you may not be entirely wrong, but close to it . The COP24 talks in Poland about implementing the Paris Agreement have just concluded. I wouldn't say they've been a failure, but they've achieved much less than they could have done. It is true that the desire of certain smaller countries for 'flexibility' was one of the issues to deal with and that's partly about wanting the ability to emit carbon if they deem it necessary (though mainly it's about the amount of money made available by the richer nations). However, a far, far bigger problem was the desire of the richer oil producing countries (the US working with Russia and Saudi Arabia like one big happy family - who would have thought it ...) to keep the world hooked on oil in order to help themselves.
I won't say a lot about the blind greed associated with this type of thinking, but can't resist a small dig. Even within the lifetime of many of the current leaders, let alone their children, the costs of climate change will outweigh the benefits of continuing to use carbon-based fuels - and those costs will continue for a very long time thereafter.
Getting back to the issue though, you seem to be under the impression that developing countries want to adopt the US model and I don't think that's the case at all. Not only can they see the environmental costs associated with that, but installing a new fossil-fuel based economy makes no economic sense anyway. There's an argument that, where you already have facilities, you should continue to use them during a transitional period - but building new such facilities (like the coal-fired electricity plants the US is championing abroad) is the equivalent of burning money.
I agree there are definitely legitimate debates between left and right about the extent to which you make social provision. At the extreme some people do believe that things like armies, roads and sewers should be left up to cooperating individuals to provide and the State should not exist at all. That's not a widespread view even in the US, but there is a genuine discussion about how far the State should go in providing things (and taxing people to do that).
However, where political dogma ignores science and results in outcomes which are both demonstrably poor quality and expensive I think the answer is clear - change the dogma. That's certainly the case in health care and certainly the case in dealing with climate change. The reasons that the US currently has the policies on these issues it does is that: - elected representatives are paid to vote in a particular way and insulated from the impact on them personally of failed policies. - campaigns by vested interests are run to try and convince the public to ignore clear evidence on these issues.
Democracy is a terrible forum to take up these issues, however. France is a perfect example of what happens when it's 'you' that has to make the sacrifice instead of 'them'. That same result will be seen in every 'democracy' when the real price to be paid is revealed. The only solution IMHO is a cost-effective alternative. That is where our resources should be allocated.
That's not my interpretation of what's happening in France. I haven't seen any specific numbers, but I get the impression that the big problem is people feeling ignored - the protesters certainly come from across the political spectrum.
While one of the original triggers for the French protests was fuel tax rises, it's not clear what the problem there is. Is it actually that people don't want environmental taxes, or is it that they see this not as a tax to benefit the environment, but a way to transfer money from poor to rich (nearly all the benefit of recent tax changes was to give more to the richest 1%)? I suspect that in a democratic debate you would find support for a carbon tax as part of a balanced overall package of taxation.
Except the majority is with the libersl position when it comes to immigration and global warming...
Also global warming isn't a policy preference. It's a scientific fact. conservatives in the pockets of Big Oil are not trying to promote a different policy preference; they are trying to dupe the public into not believing the science, because if the public understood the facts, they would have policy preferences that would not be great for Big Oil.
Btw your fantastical description of representative government only works if there is real political accountability for the representatives. So it's telling that the GOP is working hard to undermine political accountability...
The so-called solutions to global warming are what I'm talking about, not the fact of global warming.
Dude, I don't know what planet you're living on, but there is no kind of debate going on between Republicans and Democrats over how to address global warming. The nutjob conspiracy theorists with their heads in the sand denying that climate change is even happening, and generally attacking science to provide intellectual cover for it, have completely taken over the GOP.
I would LOVE to have an adult conversation about the pros and cons of this or that policy to address climate change. Is a carbon tax a bad idea? Great, let's hear some other ideas from conservatives! I honestly think they would have good ideas. I mean, there used to be conservatives who cared about the environment. But now, conservatives are not producing any ideas. Conservatives are ostracized if they don't hew to the party line that "climate change is a hoax" or "the science isn't clear" orwork.uch BS. (Cripes, they shut down the goddam Weekly Standard!!)
Whenever conservatives decide to pull their heads out of the butt-cheeks of oil-company executives sand and have a real conversation about solutions, the rest of the world is long since ready...
Well you can debate me I guess if that's a way to vent your frustrations. Personally I think that we need to find ways to deal with it myself. Even if Europe and the US are able to somehow curb carbon emissions (doubtful) there is no way short of war we're going to force the developing countries to tow the line. Am I wrong?
Well you may not be entirely wrong, but close to it . The COP24 talks in Poland about implementing the Paris Agreement have just concluded. I wouldn't say they've been a failure, but they've achieved much less than they could have done. It is true that the desire of certain smaller countries for 'flexibility' was one of the issues to deal with and that's partly about wanting the ability to emit carbon if they deem it necessary (though mainly it's about the amount of money made available by the richer nations). However, a far, far bigger problem was the desire of the richer oil producing countries (the US working with Russia and Saudi Arabia like one big happy family - who would have thought it ...) to keep the world hooked on oil in order to help themselves.
I won't say a lot about the blind greed associated with this type of thinking, but can't resist a small dig. Even within the lifetime of many of the current leaders, let alone their children, the costs of climate change will outweigh the benefits of continuing to use carbon-based fuels - and those costs will continue for a very long time thereafter.
Getting back to the issue though, you seem to be under the impression that developing countries want to adopt the US model and I don't think that's the case at all. Not only can they see the environmental costs associated with that, but installing a new fossil-fuel based economy makes no economic sense anyway. There's an argument that, where you already have facilities, you should continue to use them during a transitional period - but building new such facilities (like the coal-fired electricity plants the US is championing abroad) is the equivalent of burning money.
I agree there are definitely legitimate debates between left and right about the extent to which you make social provision. At the extreme some people do believe that things like armies, roads and sewers should be left up to cooperating individuals to provide and the State should not exist at all. That's not a widespread view even in the US, but there is a genuine discussion about how far the State should go in providing things (and taxing people to do that).
However, where political dogma ignores science and results in outcomes which are both demonstrably poor quality and expensive I think the answer is clear - change the dogma. That's certainly the case in health care and certainly the case in dealing with climate change. The reasons that the US currently has the policies on these issues it does is that: - elected representatives are paid to vote in a particular way and insulated from the impact on them personally of failed policies. - campaigns by vested interests are run to try and convince the public to ignore clear evidence on these issues.
Democracy is a terrible forum to take up these issues, however. France is a perfect example of what happens when it's 'you' that has to make the sacrifice instead of 'them'. That same result will be seen in every 'democracy' when the real price to be paid is revealed. The only solution IMHO is a cost-effective alternative. That is where our resources should be allocated.
That's not my interpretation of what's happening in France. I haven't seen any specific numbers, but I get the impression that the big problem is people feeling ignored - the protesters certainly come from across the political spectrum.
While one of the original triggers for the French protests was fuel tax rises, it's not clear what the problem there is. Is it actually that people don't want environmental taxes, or is it that they see this not as a tax to benefit the environment, but a way to transfer money from poor to rich (nearly all the benefit of recent tax changes was to give more to the richest 1%)? I suspect that in a democratic debate you would find support for a carbon tax as part of a balanced overall package of taxation.
As long as the rich paid for it you mean. I don't think the average rich person drives more than I do. He/she might pay more to heat his larger house though I guess. Would a rich person pay more for a plane ticket than a poor person? I find it more likely that plane tickets would be more expensive across the board, meaning poorer people wouldn't be able to fly at all. That sounds fair...
Edit: As a matter of fact, I'm sure a rich person would be fully capable of converting their mansion to solar or geothermal so they'd pay diddly squat in taxes to heat their house either. In fact, they'd very likely get tax credits to pay for at least part of the conversion!
Interestingly enough, petroleum is used for far more than just fuel. It's used as a feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics, lubricants, asphalt, sealants, and likely more stuff than even I know about. The petroleum companies would not go out of business if alternative fuels were discovered. The price of oil would go up as oil use goes down so they'd still be among the most wealthy companies.
I'm certain they know that too. A lot of their research money and the research money of chemical companies (such as the one I work for) are being spent on finding alternative energy sources. I know this by firsthand knowledge, not speculation.
I agree that oil (and to a lesser extent coal) have many other uses - one of the environmental arguments for not burning fossil fuels is that future generations will rue the way in which such a valuable resource was destroyed for no real benefit.
We do of course need to consider those other uses carefully. It's only in the last 10 years or so that the problem of plastic pollution has become widely recognized. It used to be generally thought that the world's eco-system was too vast for humans to have a noticeable impact on that. Apart from to a few politicians it's now obvious that's not the case - you only have to look at the extent to which fish have ingested plastic for instance. There's also the huge drop in human fertility to consider - it's not yet understood why sperm counts have halved in the last 40 years, but chemicals are certainly one possible cause.
Interestingly enough, petroleum is used for far more than just fuel. It's used as a feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics, lubricants, asphalt, sealants, and likely more stuff than even I know about. The petroleum companies would not go out of business if alternative fuels were discovered. The price of oil would go up as oil use goes down so they'd still be among the most wealthy companies.
I'm certain they know that too. A lot of their research money and the research money of chemical companies (such as the one I work for) are being spent on finding alternative energy sources. I know this by firsthand knowledge, not speculation.
I agree that oil (and to a lesser extent coal) have many other uses - one of the environmental arguments for not burning fossil fuels is that future generations will rue the way in which such a valuable resource was destroyed for no real benefit.
We do of course need to consider those other uses carefully. It's only in the last 10 years or so that the problem of plastic pollution has become widely recognized. It used to be generally thought that the world's eco-system was too vast for humans to have a noticeable impact on that. Apart from to a few politicians it's now obvious that's not the case - you only have to look at the extent to which fish have ingested plastic for instance. There's also the huge drop in human fertility to consider - it's not yet understood why sperm counts have halved in the last 40 years, but chemicals are certainly one possible cause.
Sperm counts dropping is a problem? When exactly do you want the human population to reach critical mass???
Edit: That might just be Mother Nature making a correction!
Except the majority is with the libersl position when it comes to immigration and global warming...
Also global warming isn't a policy preference. It's a scientific fact. conservatives in the pockets of Big Oil are not trying to promote a different policy preference; they are trying to dupe the public into not believing the science, because if the public understood the facts, they would have policy preferences that would not be great for Big Oil.
Btw your fantastical description of representative government only works if there is real political accountability for the representatives. So it's telling that the GOP is working hard to undermine political accountability...
The so-called solutions to global warming are what I'm talking about, not the fact of global warming.
Dude, I don't know what planet you're living on, but there is no kind of debate going on between Republicans and Democrats over how to address global warming. The nutjob conspiracy theorists with their heads in the sand denying that climate change is even happening, and generally attacking science to provide intellectual cover for it, have completely taken over the GOP.
I would LOVE to have an adult conversation about the pros and cons of this or that policy to address climate change. Is a carbon tax a bad idea? Great, let's hear some other ideas from conservatives! I honestly think they would have good ideas. I mean, there used to be conservatives who cared about the environment. But now, conservatives are not producing any ideas. Conservatives are ostracized if they don't hew to the party line that "climate change is a hoax" or "the science isn't clear" orwork.uch BS. (Cripes, they shut down the goddam Weekly Standard!!)
Whenever conservatives decide to pull their heads out of the butt-cheeks of oil-company executives sand and have a real conversation about solutions, the rest of the world is long since ready...
Well you can debate me I guess if that's a way to vent your frustrations. Personally I think that we need to find ways to deal with it myself. Even if Europe and the US are able to somehow curb carbon emissions (doubtful) there is no way short of war we're going to force the developing countries to tow the line. Am I wrong?
Well you may not be entirely wrong, but close to it . The COP24 talks in Poland about implementing the Paris Agreement have just concluded. I wouldn't say they've been a failure, but they've achieved much less than they could have done. It is true that the desire of certain smaller countries for 'flexibility' was one of the issues to deal with and that's partly about wanting the ability to emit carbon if they deem it necessary (though mainly it's about the amount of money made available by the richer nations). However, a far, far bigger problem was the desire of the richer oil producing countries (the US working with Russia and Saudi Arabia like one big happy family - who would have thought it ...) to keep the world hooked on oil in order to help themselves.
I won't say a lot about the blind greed associated with this type of thinking, but can't resist a small dig. Even within the lifetime of many of the current leaders, let alone their children, the costs of climate change will outweigh the benefits of continuing to use carbon-based fuels - and those costs will continue for a very long time thereafter.
Getting back to the issue though, you seem to be under the impression that developing countries want to adopt the US model and I don't think that's the case at all. Not only can they see the environmental costs associated with that, but installing a new fossil-fuel based economy makes no economic sense anyway. There's an argument that, where you already have facilities, you should continue to use them during a transitional period - but building new such facilities (like the coal-fired electricity plants the US is championing abroad) is the equivalent of burning money.
I agree there are definitely legitimate debates between left and right about the extent to which you make social provision. At the extreme some people do believe that things like armies, roads and sewers should be left up to cooperating individuals to provide and the State should not exist at all. That's not a widespread view even in the US, but there is a genuine discussion about how far the State should go in providing things (and taxing people to do that).
However, where political dogma ignores science and results in outcomes which are both demonstrably poor quality and expensive I think the answer is clear - change the dogma. That's certainly the case in health care and certainly the case in dealing with climate change. The reasons that the US currently has the policies on these issues it does is that: - elected representatives are paid to vote in a particular way and insulated from the impact on them personally of failed policies. - campaigns by vested interests are run to try and convince the public to ignore clear evidence on these issues.
Democracy is a terrible forum to take up these issues, however. France is a perfect example of what happens when it's 'you' that has to make the sacrifice instead of 'them'. That same result will be seen in every 'democracy' when the real price to be paid is revealed. The only solution IMHO is a cost-effective alternative. That is where our resources should be allocated.
That's not my interpretation of what's happening in France. I haven't seen any specific numbers, but I get the impression that the big problem is people feeling ignored - the protesters certainly come from across the political spectrum.
While one of the original triggers for the French protests was fuel tax rises, it's not clear what the problem there is. Is it actually that people don't want environmental taxes, or is it that they see this not as a tax to benefit the environment, but a way to transfer money from poor to rich (nearly all the benefit of recent tax changes was to give more to the richest 1%)? I suspect that in a democratic debate you would find support for a carbon tax as part of a balanced overall package of taxation.
As long as the rich paid for it you mean. I don't think the average rich person drives more than I do. He/she might pay more to heat his larger house though I guess. Would a rich person pay more for a plane ticket than a poor person? I find it more likely that plane tickets would be more expensive across the board, meaning poorer people wouldn't be able to fly at all. That sounds fair...
Edit: As a matter of fact, I'm sure a rich person would be fully capable of converting their mansion to solar or geothermal so they'd pay diddly squat in taxes to heat their house either. In fact, they'd very likely get tax credits to pay for at least part of the conversion!
By a "balanced overall package of taxation" I mean, well, "a balanced overall package of taxation". People would accept a carbon tax as one element of that, even though a carbon tax is regressive in itself, as long as the overall balance of taxation seems fair.
You specifically mention plane flights and I agree that's a tricky example to consider. The reality is that plane travel is one of the most damaging environmental things we do - so arguably we shouldn't just be trying to discourage growth in air travel (which is happening in both developed and developing countries), but actually seeking to substantially reduce current levels. In that context it's only reasonable that higher prices should put people off travelling, but I agree that the different impact of that between rich and poor is of concern.
One alternative that's been widely studied is a type of quota system, but that creates its own problems. I suspect that in practice it would be cumbersome and too easily circumvented - resulting in minimal reductions in travel, but at considerable cost and irritation all round. I also traveled quite a bit when I was younger and it doesn't feel right to want to reduce the ability of younger generations to get the same benefits of education and life experience. I don't know what the answer is here ...
Interestingly enough, petroleum is used for far more than just fuel. It's used as a feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics, lubricants, asphalt, sealants, and likely more stuff than even I know about. The petroleum companies would not go out of business if alternative fuels were discovered. The price of oil would go up as oil use goes down so they'd still be among the most wealthy companies.
I'm certain they know that too. A lot of their research money and the research money of chemical companies (such as the one I work for) are being spent on finding alternative energy sources. I know this by firsthand knowledge, not speculation.
I agree that oil (and to a lesser extent coal) have many other uses - one of the environmental arguments for not burning fossil fuels is that future generations will rue the way in which such a valuable resource was destroyed for no real benefit.
We do of course need to consider those other uses carefully. It's only in the last 10 years or so that the problem of plastic pollution has become widely recognized. It used to be generally thought that the world's eco-system was too vast for humans to have a noticeable impact on that. Apart from to a few politicians it's now obvious that's not the case - you only have to look at the extent to which fish have ingested plastic for instance. There's also the huge drop in human fertility to consider - it's not yet understood why sperm counts have halved in the last 40 years, but chemicals are certainly one possible cause.
Sperm counts dropping is a problem? When exactly do you want the human population to reach critical mass???
Edit: That might just be Mother Nature making a correction!
One reason for suspecting chemicals is that the drop in sperm counts is a specific feature to Western countries - and population growth in such countries seems unlikely to be a major concern even without the issue of fertility.
I agree you can make an argument about Mother Nature, but that's not a comforting one . It's a similar sort of argument to climate change: - you change the environment to suit you, but not the planet. - the planet's own systems react to your changes and make much bigger ones that are beyond your control. - that results in enough of a decline to humans that, over hundreds or thousands of years the natural systems come back into balance. I prefer the scenario where we control ourselves ...
Interestingly enough, petroleum is used for far more than just fuel. It's used as a feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics, lubricants, asphalt, sealants, and likely more stuff than even I know about. The petroleum companies would not go out of business if alternative fuels were discovered. The price of oil would go up as oil use goes down so they'd still be among the most wealthy companies.
I'm certain they know that too. A lot of their research money and the research money of chemical companies (such as the one I work for) are being spent on finding alternative energy sources. I know this by firsthand knowledge, not speculation.
I agree that oil (and to a lesser extent coal) have many other uses - one of the environmental arguments for not burning fossil fuels is that future generations will rue the way in which such a valuable resource was destroyed for no real benefit.
We do of course need to consider those other uses carefully. It's only in the last 10 years or so that the problem of plastic pollution has become widely recognized. It used to be generally thought that the world's eco-system was too vast for humans to have a noticeable impact on that. Apart from to a few politicians it's now obvious that's not the case - you only have to look at the extent to which fish have ingested plastic for instance. There's also the huge drop in human fertility to consider - it's not yet understood why sperm counts have halved in the last 40 years, but chemicals are certainly one possible cause.
Sperm counts dropping is a problem? When exactly do you want the human population to reach critical mass???
Edit: That might just be Mother Nature making a correction!
One reason for suspecting chemicals is that the drop in sperm counts is a specific feature to Western countries - and population growth in such countries seems unlikely to be a major concern even without the issue of fertility.
I agree you can make an argument about Mother Nature, but that's not a comforting one . It's a similar sort of argument to climate change: - you change the environment to suit you, but not the planet. - the planet's own systems react to your changes and make much bigger ones that are beyond your control. - that results in enough of a decline to humans that, over hundreds or thousands of years the natural systems come back into balance. I prefer the scenario where we control ourselves ...
When have human beings ever been capable of doing that? And then you have those "Quiverfull" families who think it is their duty to god to reproduce as much as possible, until God stops them by making them unable to have kids any more. (The Whole 19 kids and Counting and "Counting On" series being examples of this.) If everyone did that, we'd have rampant overpopulation in 18 years (if not sooner). But try telling those families that!
Interestingly enough, petroleum is used for far more than just fuel. It's used as a feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics, lubricants, asphalt, sealants, and likely more stuff than even I know about. The petroleum companies would not go out of business if alternative fuels were discovered. The price of oil would go up as oil use goes down so they'd still be among the most wealthy companies.
I'm certain they know that too. A lot of their research money and the research money of chemical companies (such as the one I work for) are being spent on finding alternative energy sources. I know this by firsthand knowledge, not speculation.
I agree that oil (and to a lesser extent coal) have many other uses - one of the environmental arguments for not burning fossil fuels is that future generations will rue the way in which such a valuable resource was destroyed for no real benefit.
We do of course need to consider those other uses carefully. It's only in the last 10 years or so that the problem of plastic pollution has become widely recognized. It used to be generally thought that the world's eco-system was too vast for humans to have a noticeable impact on that. Apart from to a few politicians it's now obvious that's not the case - you only have to look at the extent to which fish have ingested plastic for instance. There's also the huge drop in human fertility to consider - it's not yet understood why sperm counts have halved in the last 40 years, but chemicals are certainly one possible cause.
Sperm counts dropping is a problem? When exactly do you want the human population to reach critical mass???
Edit: That might just be Mother Nature making a correction!
One reason for suspecting chemicals is that the drop in sperm counts is a specific feature to Western countries - and population growth in such countries seems unlikely to be a major concern even without the issue of fertility.
I agree you can make an argument about Mother Nature, but that's not a comforting one . It's a similar sort of argument to climate change: - you change the environment to suit you, but not the planet. - the planet's own systems react to your changes and make much bigger ones that are beyond your control. - that results in enough of a decline to humans that, over hundreds or thousands of years the natural systems come back into balance. I prefer the scenario where we control ourselves ...
When have human beings ever been capable of doing that? And then you have those "Quiverfull" families who think it is their duty to god to reproduce as much as possible, until God stops them by making them unable to have kids any more. (The Whole 19 kids and Counting and "Counting On" series being examples of this.) If everyone did that, we'd have rampant overpopulation in 18 years (if not sooner). But try telling those families that!
I think people should have less kids in general, and that at least half the people who do aren't remotely "qualified" to be a good parent. But it's impossible to legislate, and immoral to even attempt to do so. As for why I support a robust safety net.......well, once those kids are here, if their parents don't have enough money to make ends meet, SOMEONE has to pay for the medical care and food for these kids. We can't very well let them starve (though MANY kids in this country do go to school hungry on a regular basis, which is why I also support universal free lunch and breakfast at schools).
I find it highly contradictory that (in general) the party that is against abortion is also the one that fights against these type of social programs. It's not pro-life in that case, it's pro-birth. Once you're out of the womb, that concern seems to be based on whether your parents have enough money to actually take care of you. There are people like @ThacoBell who I believe are consistent on this issue, but the policies pushed by the right in regards to this are not. What I will hear in response is "people shouldn't have sex if they don't want kids". Well, not really. Contraception, when used properly, has about a 99% chance of stopping unwanted pregnancy. But the only type of sex education they want is abstinence only (which has never worked, and never will work) on top a general moral opposition to birth control that leads them to file court cases making it so employers don't have to cover it and pharmacists not filling valid prescriptions. This combination of ideas results in MORE abortions, not less.
Good god, the criminality of this family is bottomless. I'd especially like to call this to the attention of @semiticgod, who did such a good job of explaining the last NY Times piece on Trump's taxes. This was just outright theft and fraud against normal, everyday people trying to get by:
Good god, the criminality of this family is bottomless. I'd especially like to call this to the attention of @semiticgod, who did such a good job of explaining the last NY Times piece on Trump's taxes. This was just outright theft and fraud against normal, everyday people trying to get by:
Can't relate. The most a landlord can increase rent here in Ontario from year to year is 1.8% This is to prevent this type of crap from happening - a nice safety net regulation to prevent landlords screwing with their tenants. This does however, push the burden to new tenants taking over vacant rental slots though if a buildings costs due begin to skyrocket and makes buildings push back repairs as long as they can until they can actually afford it, but its better than dealing with this type of crap and maybe being forced out of an apartment because a landlord changed a couple light bulbs and wants to raise everyone's rent by 10% to cover the cost.
Comments
Lots of people help pay for alot of things. But what I seem to notice in all general conversations about politics is that only conservatives seem to be allowed to complain about (or, at the very least, are the only ones taken seriously) about how money is spent. Someone on the right can complain about food stamps or healthcare costs til the cows come home and be taken pretty damn seriously, but the moment someone on the left points out that our military is about 3 or 4 times larger than it needs to be to protect us, or that corporate welfare accounts for about 40% more of the budget than social welfare like housing and food stamps, we're basically laughed out of the room.
As for food stamps, we are dealing with the same issue, but here are some numbers:
1.) Nearly three-quarters of adults who participate in SNAP in a typical month work either that month or within a year of that month of participation. Over half of individuals who were participating in SNAP in a typical month in mid-2012 were working in that month. Furthermore, 74 percent worked in the year before or after that month (in the 25-month period). Rates were even higher when work among other household members is counted: 81 percent of SNAP households with a non-disabled adult, and 87 percent of households with children and a non-disabled adult, included at least one member who worked in this 25-month period.
2.) SNAP participants often experience periods of joblessness and are more likely to participate in SNAP when they are out of work. Individuals who participated in SNAP at any point over a 3.5-year period from 2009 through 2013 worked most months over this period, but were more likely to participate when they were out of work. They participated in SNAP in over two-fifths of the months that they were working (44 percent). They participated in SNAP in 62 percent of the months in which they were not working, a time when their income was lower and their need for help affording food was higher.
3.) SNAP participation among non-disabled adults is often short term, but those who receive SNAP for longer periods still work most of the time. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the adults who participated in SNAP at some point over the roughly 3.5-year period that this part of our analysis examined received it for a total of less than two years. Regardless of how long these adults participated in SNAP, however, they worked in the majority of months in which they received SNAP assistance. Over one-third of non-disabled adults worked in every month they participated in SNAP.
4.) SNAP participants who are consistently out of work often face barriers to work or have caretaking responsibilities. About one-quarter of adults who participated in SNAP in a given month in 2012 did not work within a year. Of those adults, most cited caretaking responsibilities or health conditions as the reasons they were not working. These adults were also more likely to lack a high school degree or to report a work-limiting health condition than those who worked. (While this analysis is limited to adults who do not receive disability benefits, many individuals with significant impairments and other health conditions that limit their ability to work do not receive such benefits.)
Even taking all that into account, food stamps account for precisely 1.8% of the federal budget.
Should I not be able to get help after all that? I think everyone deserves a helping hand, and if they can;t get back up, I think the money is there, or should be there regardless.
Banks have been cheating people out of their homes, BIG corporations and drug companies have skimped on workplace rights, health rights, and it is in my eyes a human rights violation of the US. In fact, we wrote the powerless UN a letter on just that.
"the amount to which a person has a right"
We pay into unemployment. We pay into Social Security. We pay into Medicare. All our lives, every two weeks. How the right has twisted the word "entitlement" to mean something negative is part of the problem. It is simply as it's definition says it is. The word needs to either be taken back, or replaced with something with less of a stigma.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
A small scale mom and pop solution isn't going to get it done. You and I can make a difference but we need action on these big companies more than anything. These companies donate to Republicans who happily take bribes to get them on board with killing us.
https://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/features/featurethe-10-biggest-oil-consuming-countries-4141632/
The money we put into the system should have been put into individual accounts for each person, That's the way it was sold back in the day, but that's not what happened. Instead it was all pooled together and became so large that it was too tempting not to use for other purposes. Just like my mom and dads pension funds were used to save Chrysler back in the Iacocca years. They weren't asked if they wanted that money gambled, their union made that choice for them. It worked out ok but that doesn't make it right.
I won't say a lot about the blind greed associated with this type of thinking, but can't resist a small dig. Even within the lifetime of many of the current leaders, let alone their children, the costs of climate change will outweigh the benefits of continuing to use carbon-based fuels - and those costs will continue for a very long time thereafter.
Getting back to the issue though, you seem to be under the impression that developing countries want to adopt the US model and I don't think that's the case at all. Not only can they see the environmental costs associated with that, but installing a new fossil-fuel based economy makes no economic sense anyway. There's an argument that, where you already have facilities, you should continue to use them during a transitional period - but building new such facilities (like the coal-fired electricity plants the US is championing abroad) is the equivalent of burning money.
I agree there are definitely legitimate debates between left and right about the extent to which you make social provision. At the extreme some people do believe that things like armies, roads and sewers should be left up to cooperating individuals to provide and the State should not exist at all. That's not a widespread view even in the US, but there is a genuine discussion about how far the State should go in providing things (and taxing people to do that).
However, where political dogma ignores science and results in outcomes which are both demonstrably poor quality and expensive I think the answer is clear - change the dogma. That's certainly the case in health care and certainly the case in dealing with climate change. The reasons that the US currently has the policies on these issues it does is that:
- elected representatives are paid to vote in a particular way and insulated from the impact on them personally of failed policies.
- campaigns by vested interests are run to try and convince the public to ignore clear evidence on these issues.
For the least developed countries, there's no incentive to try and build the sort of centralized energy systems that all Western countries have. I'm involved in some of the work trying to move away from that in the UK, but that's not easy to do. However, if you were starting from scratch you would no longer want to design in a system based around centralized generation and distribution. Instead you would want smaller-scale local generation, based on renewable technologies - and that's the system that the least developed countries will jump straight to rather than going through the fossil fuel stage as China has done.
I'm certain they know that too. A lot of their research money and the research money of chemical companies (such as the one I work for) are being spent on finding alternative energy sources. I know this by firsthand knowledge, not speculation.
(At least not without a lot more work.)
While one of the original triggers for the French protests was fuel tax rises, it's not clear what the problem there is. Is it actually that people don't want environmental taxes, or is it that they see this not as a tax to benefit the environment, but a way to transfer money from poor to rich (nearly all the benefit of recent tax changes was to give more to the richest 1%)? I suspect that in a democratic debate you would find support for a carbon tax as part of a balanced overall package of taxation.
Edit: As a matter of fact, I'm sure a rich person would be fully capable of converting their mansion to solar or geothermal so they'd pay diddly squat in taxes to heat their house either. In fact, they'd very likely get tax credits to pay for at least part of the conversion!
We do of course need to consider those other uses carefully. It's only in the last 10 years or so that the problem of plastic pollution has become widely recognized. It used to be generally thought that the world's eco-system was too vast for humans to have a noticeable impact on that. Apart from to a few politicians it's now obvious that's not the case - you only have to look at the extent to which fish have ingested plastic for instance. There's also the huge drop in human fertility to consider - it's not yet understood why sperm counts have halved in the last 40 years, but chemicals are certainly one possible cause.
Edit: That might just be Mother Nature making a correction!
You specifically mention plane flights and I agree that's a tricky example to consider. The reality is that plane travel is one of the most damaging environmental things we do - so arguably we shouldn't just be trying to discourage growth in air travel (which is happening in both developed and developing countries), but actually seeking to substantially reduce current levels. In that context it's only reasonable that higher prices should put people off travelling, but I agree that the different impact of that between rich and poor is of concern.
One alternative that's been widely studied is a type of quota system, but that creates its own problems. I suspect that in practice it would be cumbersome and too easily circumvented - resulting in minimal reductions in travel, but at considerable cost and irritation all round. I also traveled quite a bit when I was younger and it doesn't feel right to want to reduce the ability of younger generations to get the same benefits of education and life experience. I don't know what the answer is here ...
I agree you can make an argument about Mother Nature, but that's not a comforting one
- you change the environment to suit you, but not the planet.
- the planet's own systems react to your changes and make much bigger ones that are beyond your control.
- that results in enough of a decline to humans that, over hundreds or thousands of years the natural systems come back into balance.
I prefer the scenario where we control ourselves ...
I find it highly contradictory that (in general) the party that is against abortion is also the one that fights against these type of social programs. It's not pro-life in that case, it's pro-birth. Once you're out of the womb, that concern seems to be based on whether your parents have enough money to actually take care of you. There are people like @ThacoBell who I believe are consistent on this issue, but the policies pushed by the right in regards to this are not. What I will hear in response is "people shouldn't have sex if they don't want kids". Well, not really. Contraception, when used properly, has about a 99% chance of stopping unwanted pregnancy. But the only type of sex education they want is abstinence only (which has never worked, and never will work) on top a general moral opposition to birth control that leads them to file court cases making it so employers don't have to cover it and pharmacists not filling valid prescriptions. This combination of ideas results in MORE abortions, not less.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/us/politics/trump-tenants-taxes.html
The most a landlord can increase rent here in Ontario from year to year is 1.8% This is to prevent this type of crap from happening - a nice safety net regulation to prevent landlords screwing with their tenants.
This does however, push the burden to new tenants taking over vacant rental slots though if a buildings costs due begin to skyrocket and makes buildings push back repairs as long as they can until they can actually afford it, but its better than dealing with this type of crap and maybe being forced out of an apartment because a landlord changed a couple light bulbs and wants to raise everyone's rent by 10% to cover the cost.