Lets go over the cliff

General Discussion
241
This is another problem.....it's too many of us putting concerns about money before people and lack of empathy. Investment in people is always profitable.

That’s a good article @dagasa. Closed minded people will believe what they want to believe…no matter what. They believe that global warming doesn’t exist (because Fox News or Rush Limbaugh told them so)…so it doesn’t matter what kind of evidence there is they’ll never believe it. They clasp onto junk science if there’s a ray of hope that it may vindicate their beliefs. When the global warming theory was first introduced some 30+ years ago…it was laughed at. When a scientific theory is introduced the rest of the scientific community basically tries to disprove it. But after 30+ years of test after test after test from scientists all over the world…the vast majority now agrees with the theory.

Then you get guys oil guys like Koch who’s still holding on to hope…but even that bubble is burst.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/?mobile=nc

242

There is just so much inaccurate information being bandied about in the media (and in this thread), that I just have to post some corrections.

In the June 4, 2012 issue, Business Week magazine had a small article titled, “An Empty Chair Would’ve Spent As Much”. It states, “The GOP blames President Obama for the $4 Trillion rise in the nation’s debt to $15 Trillion. Yet, the numbers show yearly deficits would have exploded no matter who occupied the White House during the slow recovery from 2009 to 2011.”

In support of that statement, they listed the following realities:

Tax receipts dropped by $1 Trillion
Mandatory spending increases on services for the poor and the elderly accounted for 77% of the increase in the deficit.
Higher spending on defense & veterans accounted for 11% of the increase in the deficit
Other gov’t programs accounted for 12% of the increase in the deficit

As to the usual claim about “Obamacare” resulting in the largest-ever increase in US taxes, here are the “top 15” tax increases in our history, as measured as a percentage of the GDP (the only accurate way to compare taxes from different time periods):

Revenue Act of 1951 1.52%
Revenue Act of 1950 1.33%
Temporary Surcharge of 1968 1.09%
Excess Profits Tax of 1950 .97%
Reagan Tax Increase of 1982 .80%
Tax increase of 1966 .60%
Oil Windfall Tax of 1980 .50%
Clinton Tax Increase of 1993 .50%
Bush Tax Increase of 1990 .49%
Obama Health Reform .49%
Tax Reform Act of 1969 .30%
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 .30%
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 .24%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 .22%
Social Security Tax of 1983 .20%

So, despite the faux facts spewed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and others with a very obvious agenda, the reality is that the tax increase resulting from “Obamacare” (.49%) is very far from the biggest tax increase in our history, and–in fact–pales by comparison with the total of 1.76% increases in federal taxes during the Reagan Administration. Isn’t it ironic that the president whom most people will say was the big tax cutter (in his first year in office) wound up being the biggest tax increaser of them all? It just goes to show how the public’s perceptions can be altered if you manipulate them in the right way.

Just bear in mind that I am not criticizing Mr. Reagan for all of his tax increases, as they were necessary to keep the deficit from exploding even more than it did during his term in office. If Mr. Bush had not reduced taxes during a strong economy, while simultaneously waging two wars, we would not be in the position that we are in today.

Then we have that myth about stifling job growth by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Here are the facts:
During the Clinton Administration, the top tax rate was 39.6%, yet there were 23 million jobs created during those years.
Contrast that with the top tax rate of 35% during the Bush years, with a total number of just 3 million jobs created.
Or to put it another way, the average annual job growth rate during the higher-tax Clinton years was 2.4%, while the average annual job growth rate during the lower-tax Bush years was .2%

While I don’t have the exact figures in front of me, let us not forget that the growth of the US economy during the VERY high tax years of the Eisenhower Administration was like an explosion. Tens of millions of middle-class Americans somehow managed to attain “the good life” during the '50s, despite the reality that the “job creators” were paying over 90% taxes on their income at that time.

The only difference between then and now is that the wealthiest Americans did not have an effective propaganda machine in those days, as they do now. Now, they are able to spread the fable that they will somehow just give up and stop expanding their businesses if their taxes are increased by a couple of percentage points, without mentioning the fact that these “excessive taxes” are less than half of what they and their parents were paying during the boom years of the 1950s.

And, as to the oft-heard statement that Mr. Obama is “gutting” the defense budget, the reality is that he is lowering it to the same level that it was at in 2007 under Mr. Bush–when we were waging two simultaneous wars. Since he came into office, Obama has increased the defense budget to a great extent, and is now merely reducing that budget to the earlier Bush-era levels. Since we are no longer waging two simultaneous wars, and will soon be out of Afghanistan, this 2007-level budget amount actually provides very generous funding for the military.

243

dagosa, I feel you are accusing me falsely, maybe it is just me being overly defensive. But I do wish to set the record straight. I am not against social programs to help people who are in need of help. I am very concerned about the environment and global warming. But if we don’t get the debt under control, we are not going to be able to do anything to help either problem.

Please do not put me into a category of someone who is influenced by rush Limbaugh. I have heard him on occasion and I will not say anything further on that, other than when I hear his name, it reminds me of a speech by who I believe was out greatest president, Theodore Roosevelt called “The Critic”. More than a few other political commentators on both sides of the isle remind me of this speech as well.

http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Theodore+Roosevelt/1/

I like VCDdrivers comments above.

244

30+ years ago we were told to prepare for the next ice age.

The question isn’t whether global warming is real. The question is how much of it is normal climate cycles, how much of it is man-made, and whether our current approach will make any difference.

I’ve long said that the EPA did a tremendous and necessary job cleaning up filthy air, polluted rivers, and stopping the problems from continuing. But for decades they’ve continued to “raise the bar” on cars while trucks poured contaminants into the air. Fortunately, they’ve finally begun to address that, but they have a very long way to go. I believe they’ve also gotten to the point where they and the wildlife protection agencies are often doing great harm for no benefit. People die on I-93 because it has long since grown beyond its capacity, yet an activist lawyer group has put the expansion years behind schedule to try to force a rail line that nobody wants or needs…or can afford.

Re: the money vs. people issue, the two are not seperate. People are struggling nationwide like hasn;t been seen since the great depression. Taking more money from us to fund special interset groups with campaign money to spend and lobbiests to spare does cause people to suffer.

Forcing people to buy health insurance against their will means a guaranteed subscriber base for all insurance companies, enabling them to transfer more health care costs to the subscribers with no risk to their client base, causing people to suffer…especially the elderly who need far more care. And it’s about to get a lot worse. Under Obamacare we’ll pay much more money for far less care. Insurance plans are already changing to “first $X,000 deductable” before the insurance even kicks in. People will be forced to buy insurance policies that they’ll never even get to use because every year they’ll have to pay the first $5,000 (or whatever) anyway. Yes, that will hurt people struggling to survice. That will cause people suffering.

Forcing companies to pay substantially more for insurance if they expand will (and already has) cause them to NOT hire people. Even to lay off people. Yes, that causes people to suffer. And the increase costs will be passed on to the customers. We pay at both ends, coming and going. The only budget growing is the government’s.

I contend that you cannot seperate caring about the money issues and caring about the people.

245

@MikeInNH good points…
The argument that the nay sayers give sounds something like this.

There is nosuch thing as climate change, it’s a hoax.
And, if there is, it’s cyclic and natures way and nothing to do with us as the world is too big.
And, if mankind is responsible. there is nothing we can do about it now.
And, there is something we could do about it, it’s too expensive.

Just a bunch of CYA statements that comes down to…don’t spend any money if it means my benefits might be cut.

The sad thing about it is; I have met plenty of responsible individuals who are against climate change legislation who, when questioned, still believe in it, They just don’t want to spend any money and believe the private sector left to it’s own devices will “cure everything” and somehow, still blame too much govt. regulation for it.

246

Dag, I would argue that the vast majority of those opposed to a lot of what the EPA is doing right now fall somewhere in between a “naysayer” and a “believer”. And whether they lean more toward the “naysayer” end of the spectrum or more toward the “believer” end of the spectrum, those feeling differently will label them as if the issue were “black and white”. I don’t believe it is. I consider muself somewhere in the middle, recognizing the importance of a clean environment but not necessarily agreeing with everything the EPA does or those at the “believer” end of the spectrum claim.

There’s also an issue I have with the propriety of the EPA. The function of a government regulatory agency is to promulgate and enforce regulations to ensure compliance with legislative statute. The EPA has now gotten the court’s approval to regulate CO2, which is not addressed in the Clean Air and Water Act. Which means that in effect the EPA can now modify/expand existing legislation without going through the vetting and review process that the two-house legislature was designed for.

So, Dag, in summary I would have to disagree with your characterization of us naysayers. I don;t think it’s at all black & white. The issues are complex and multifaceted.

247

Same…
To a much lesser and better informed degree, I believe you DO represent those I was referring to. When I talk about naysayers, they to me are not, non believers, they are non supporters at the govt. level, if that makes any sense. In the same way all my very conservative friends essentially believe the same way I do about the problems we face, they just don’t trust anyone in govt. to do anything about it. As far as the EPA is concerned, I believe there is a need to circumvent the political process in many cases. Just like the Internal Revenue Service can act in a legislatively uncontrolled way, there are times when the EPA does, and must do as well.

Corporation are set up so that the burden of proof is much higher for malfesence then that of an individual. Even with a class action suit, it’s impossible to reach a settlement within the life expectancy of the citizenry. This is where the govt. steps in as a represent of the people, unencombered by both legislative and judicial interference. Seldom if ever does the EPA concern itself with the private citizens but corporations instead. This is were the complains come from. Fines can be levied at the stroke of a pen for pollution and the corporations are just not up to that kind of enforcement. Complains concerning the EPA originate from business.

The biggest complaints of late I hear about the EPA is the lack of enforcement, not too much. Fraking is still an area where concrete guuild lines and enforceable legislation would work to veryone’s benefit. Right now, it’s taking a back seat to precieved economic benefits of doing little.

The issues concerning oimate hange are pretty straight forward and not " complicated and multifaceted" . The solutions are just as strait forward as well. It’s the precieved cost of implementation and trust in those who would do it vs the cost of doing nothing or little that “naysayers” are fearful of. And, it boils down to money. This to me is a false arguement as the cost of doing nothing, if NY and New Jersey are examples of, is not an option to consider.

We must educate our youth, at all cost, we must control climate change at all cost as well. I sometimes think that if there were a meteorite hurling towards us a great speed, threatening to annihilate the human race, half the time in preparation to prevent it would be spent on who gets the $$$$$ and the contract to build the equipment.

248

Concerning Obamacare, I guess we are reading different provisions. They are on line. The deductibles are suppose to go down, and for preventative care FREE witout deductables. Insurance companies are mandated to limit profits to less then 20% and cost of insurance is suppose to be less then 17% of your net salery. Obama care is suppose to adress the real cost of health insurance, corporate for profit costs, the cost of healthcare itself and decisions made with that in mind. As I have said before, all of we who think Medicare is not worthwhile, and I have yet to meet a retiree who does, has little to fear with Obamacare. You have most to fear from those who cry “wolf in the form of a deficit” to keep from investing in people. We need to move to single payer health care to better reduce our debt. Obama care is that first, but not enough, step.

249
30+ years ago we were told to prepare for the next ice age.

Actually the theory was that Global Warming was cause so much melting of the icecaps that it would desalinate the oceans enough to stop the ocean currents. Without the ocean currents it could send the world into another iceage.

The question isn't whether global warming is real. The question is how much of it is normal climate cycles, how much of it is man-made, and whether our current approach will make any difference.

Man-made is no longer a question. There’s a lot of evidence that says man has a lot to do with much of the current global warming.

The big question is…what will happen. The earth is a chaotic system that it may actually fix any problems we can throw at it. Not too many scientists are making predictions now. And if they are…they’re all over the map. But I prefer to stay on the side of caution.

For the sake of argument…let’s say that Global warming is true…and man is 90% accurate…and that in 50 years the ice caps will melt and oceans rise and flood the east coast…

And what if we decide to do NOTHING about it…then what…We all just say…“Oh Well”…I guess they were right.

@dagosa - There’s another group of people you forgot about…“The Christian Right”. Many believe that the day of reckoning is at hand…and that there’s no reason to do anything about global waring. Some also believe…that God created the earth and man to watch over it…and that God would never allow Global Warming to happen.

You also have the group of people like the “Flat Earth Society” who think that the earth is still flat.

250

@VDC
Good summary of where and why we are here in this financial situation. Higher corporate taxes and higher income tax on the wealthy, encourages growth. There is a tipping point where for those few who would invest may not if the rates were too low. The job creators will create jobs if it is profitable to do so.
Keep reminding yourself that small and big incorporated businesses pay NO TAX on money they reinvest for saleries, health insurance and any cost to do business. The higher the tax rate, the more insentive to reinvest, which grows the economy.

251

Mike, I don;t believe there is agreement on how much of the climate change is man-driven and how much is normal-cycle.

Our current regulations are causing a continual improvement in the environment. If we do nothing more, that isn;t the same as doing nothing.

252

Notice that the Climate Lobby has gradually changed its fear mongering from Global Warming to Climate Change. Most scientists now believe that a combination of solar activity and other cyclic events together with human activity are affecting climate change. Over the last 10 years global temperatures have stabilized, but we don’t know for how long.

Yes, in the seventies there was talk of another Ice Age. Oscar Wilde/Thornton Wilder? wrote a play called “The Skin of Our Teeth”, about a family in Atlantic City facing a coming ice age. Mr. Antrobus’s famous last words were: “Burn everything except Shakespeare.” Our drama club put that play on in 1958 at our university.

In the mean time, Al Gore has sold his TV network for a cool $100 million to Al Jazeera, the Qatar Muslim news agency, which now operates in the US, financed by…OIL!!! You won’t see too many renewable energy ads on this network.

253

"Oscar Wilde/Thornton Wilder? wrote a play called “The Skin of Our Teeth”, about a family in Atlantic City facing a coming ice age. "

That play was written by Thornton Wilder, and it opened in 1942–42 years after Oscar Wilde died.
;-))

254

Thank you Doc! When I read about who Al Gore sold his network to I laughed so hard I almost fell off my chair! Talk about putting money above the environment!

255

No doubt, a ruler, dictator, king or political party must have the support of a significant percentage of the population and it is much easier to rally a constituency to a cause when there is a demon to be fought. The GOP has rallied constituencies to oppose the demons from family planning, gun restrictions, entitlements and of course Muslim terrorists and the Democrats make their stand against homophobes, bigots, war mongers and polluters of the environment. The greatest problem that we face on all these issues is the lack of good sense in dealing with any of them. Each constituency demands that their cause be deemed the GRAND CRUSADE and to hell with all the others. And politicians strut and guffaw and wave banners to their constituencies but usually deliver little of consequence. Like the real Crusades all these causes become organizations that become gravy trains for charismatic leaders whose greatest priority is growing their own personal finances. Or so it appears to me.

256

Same
I agree, there is not total agreement but please read my referenced article. There will never be agreement on technically, how much is man made. So, the answer is what, we compromise with mother nature and fix a % and let mother nature work on the rest ?
Or worse, do nothing because 5 % of the scientists can’t agree with 95% of the rest who think more should and could be done ?

If the 95 to 5 ratio were in your favor I don’t think my stand of doing something would have much cred. Our current regulations, passed over kicking and screaming conservatives have indeed helped, but not on the climate front. Switching over to 4stroke outboards has and will do wonders to clean up our lakes and streams from oil polution, but does little on the climate front.

Your same arguement fortunately was not succesful for dealing with the depleting ozone layer, which, was an unqualified success. Why ? We listened to that 95% of the scientists.

257

Well stated and beautifully summarized.
And the list of “charismatic leaders” that fit your description is very, very long.

258

The worlds largest general science community.

As a Math and Science teacher, I attended many conferences over the years, national and regional. These summarize what was and is now discussed on this issue.

259
dagosa "Your same argument fortunately was not successful for dealing with the depleting ozone layer, which, was an unqualified success. Why ? We listened to that 95% of the scientists."

It didn’t start off with 95% of the scientists. In 1968, I had a roommate in College whose father was one of the first to warn about this. Because of this, he lost his position as a professor at a prestigious university and ended up teaching at a community college in the middle of Virginia. It didn’t gain acceptance until almost 20 years later.

260
I attended many conferences over the years, national and regional. These summarize what was and is now discussed on this issue.

When my daughter was an undergraduate at MIT a couple of her advisers are considered some of the leading scientists in the WORLD on Climate change. As an undergraduate she helped organize at least one conference held at MIT on some of the new methods for making new predictions. While some of the scientists there believed that man had little or nothing to do with climate change…most believed that man was the leading cause. But there wasn’t a consensus on what will happen because of global climate change.