July 4th Tea Party [Mobile/Archive]

elprincipe

07-04-2009, 12:57 AM

It just doesn't matter when the majority of people don't think we're even taxed enough already. There's even people like Myke who think we shouldn't even be entitled to keep what we earn because wealth is really owned by the common good.

These futile protests serve no real purpose when we churn out morally bankrupt youth who don't believe in private property to begin with. Go to as many tea parties as you want but it won't change the fact that people think sustenance is a basic human right that must be provided by the collective.

Sustenance, schmustenance. At this point in time the average American feels entitled to at least a 35" plasma, eating out at least three times a week and the right to change their decisions on things like ARMs when they prove to be poor ones.

UncleBob

07-04-2009, 01:36 AM

dumb

though i'm pretty pissed about cap & trade

Oh, now, what could possibly be wrong about a bill that lets one private company pollute my property while paying the government for the right to do so? :)

I bet it'll be as effective as all those idiots who put magnets on their car supporting a cause.

I want one of those magnets.
Anyway, has anyone ever seen Invader Zim? My wife and I enjoy it - there's an episode where Zim goes around stealing human organs so he'll be able to convince the school nurse he's human. When Dib tells Zim his plan won't work, Zim says "Nonsense. More organs means more human!"

One day, my wife and I were passed by an SUV with about four million of those little magnets and some stickers on the back of the vehicle. I looked at my wife and said "More ribbons means more American!" ;)

camoor

07-04-2009, 05:48 PM

I want one of those magnets.
Anyway, has anyone ever seen Invader Zim? My wife and I enjoy it - there's an episode where Zim goes around stealing human organs so he'll be able to convince the school nurse he's human. When Dib tells Zim his plan won't work, Zim says "Nonsense. More organs means more human!"

One day, my wife and I were passed by an SUV with about four million of those little magnets and some stickers on the back of the vehicle. I looked at my wife and said "More ribbons means more American!" ;)

I love that episode. Especially because he's about to burst but when the nurse checks him out she can't believe how healthy he is, being that he has 5 hearts, 12 lungs, 8 spleens, etc.

What a great show. I'm perplexed as to how it came to be, and I'm also perplexed as to how Nickleodeon fumbled such cult classic greatness.

Koggit

07-04-2009, 06:27 PM

Oh, now, what could possibly be wrong about a bill that lets one private company pollute my property while paying the government for the right to do so? :)
i wouldn't care about that if it weren't a regressive tax

fatherofcaitlyn

07-04-2009, 07:22 PM

I also want to know what word in her post was censored. CAG doesn't censor too many words...

I was going to say $$$$ers, $$$$as or fuckers. Possibly, Liquid2 edited the word on his or her own.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-04-2009, 07:25 PM

i wouldn't care about that if it weren't a regressive tax

Doesn't cap and trade cost practically nothing to the average consumer?

I've heard the $3000 extra in energy bills per year was BS.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-04-2009, 07:29 PM

Sustenance, schmustenance. At this point in time the average American feels entitled to at least a 35" plasma, eating out at least three times a week and the right to change their decisions on things like ARMs when they prove to be poor ones.

When my wife gives me a wish list of things to buy, I occasionally suggest going bankrupt so we can get out of debt faster.

MOC: Are you serious?

FOC: No.

It is a shame. Part of me wants to work harder and smarter to get ahead in life, but that damn reset button gets more attractive every year.

elprincipe

07-05-2009, 01:37 PM

When my wife gives me a wish list of things to buy, I occasionally suggest going bankrupt so we can get out of debt faster.

MOC: Are you serious?

FOC: No.

It is a shame. Part of me wants to work harder and smarter to get ahead in life, but that damn reset button gets more attractive every year.

And then they talk (seriously) about things like cramdown and "onerous" bankruptcy law that makes it so tough on the scum that leech off society and then throw their hands up when it comes time to pay the bills.

Liquid 2

07-05-2009, 03:43 PM

Ended up hangin' out with some friends and didn't go. Oh well.

She's been hawking my posts like some sort of jilted lover for a few months now. I don't know what's up with that.

~HotShotXIt's because it's absolutely retarded how you sign your posts when your name is immediately to the left of it.

I was going to say $$$$ers, $$$$as or fuckers. Possibly, Liquid2 edited the word on his or her own.

None of the above, and no, I didn't.

HowStern

07-05-2009, 04:24 PM

I'm pretty sure he/she wrote was perez hilton said to the black eyed pea.

Also, way to show the man! Hangin' out with your friends!

Why are these protests taking place after a president who just lowered taxes for 95% of America steps into office?

elprincipe

07-05-2009, 04:59 PM

Why are these protests taking place after a president who just lowered taxes for 95% of America steps into office?

Perhaps because that extra $10 on your paycheck isn't much compared to an Obama-supported energy tax of $71,000+ per family over a decade, not to mention the huge indirect taxes that would come about if the Senate stupidly voted the way the House did to destroy our economy by passing Waxman-Markey? Or a tax on health care benefits that's now being proposed? Or whatever other tax they come up with to service the doubling of our national debt -- the path embarked upon by our idiot Congress and Obama (Bush helped it along the way with the first "stimulus" that didn't work and TARP)?

HowStern

07-05-2009, 05:25 PM

^lol at the foxnews numbers.

First it was $3,000 a family annually for the energy plan now they are saying $71,00 a family per decade?

That's cute. Maybe 2% of Americans are in a tax bracket high enough to see that kind of increase. Maybe.

I think the healthcare benefit tax is Obama's way of saying "Look it, retards. If you don't pass my health care reform bill our health care industry is going to bankrupt us. (Because it is. We are spending three times as much per person than France, who has the highest rated healthcare service in the world) So, I'm going to have to start taxing it."

Do I think it will actually happen if the health care reform bill doesn't pass? Not a chance in the long. But Fox News is going ot take it and run.

Koggit

07-05-2009, 05:48 PM

the problem is it isn't the top 2% of americans that are feeling the pain of cap&trade... where i am vs hometown:

City: Seattle
Avg Family Income of City: $62,000
Currently Energy Bill: $30/month
Energy Type: Green (92% hydro)

City: Charenton, LA
Avg Family Income of City: $30,000
Current Energy Bill: $250+/mo
Energy Type: Some CO2 (nat. gas)

who's being taxed more...

the poor.

most big cities have cleaner energy (obviously, they can afford to invest more in energy infrastructure), higher income, and lower energy bills... cap & trade is gonna be felt most by low income rural folks, where, due to few customers per plant, coal is the only sensible economic choice. and there are tax credits, sure, but they're not gonna cover shit, it's a bandaid to treat buttrape and it's just not enough.

not to mention doling out these 'credits' is basically just welcoming corruption. whether the committee chooses to let 'gifts' affect their distribution of credits or they pick-and-choose based on their own investments (e.g. Nancy Pelosi wants to protect her California investments in green energy so she's stingy with California plants, to hurt them & help her)... it's giving people who have proven themselves to be terrible puppetmasters some powerful strings.

if they care so much about carbon, the better path would've been to raise the fed income tax and subsidize cleaning up our dirtiest plants... that keeps the tax progressive and removes the shady credit-distribution aspect.

HowStern

07-05-2009, 06:54 PM

evanft

07-05-2009, 06:59 PM

I really like Krugman. He really explains things well and has fully formed arguments that clearly show he knows what he's talking about.

HowStern

07-05-2009, 07:17 PM

Not sure if you are serious. I would hope so, though, because you do know you don't get a nobel prize for being a blow hard who has no idea what you are talking about, right? Do you have one? Oh, you don't? Hm...Well, then. You sure are in a position to criticize someone who does...

Basically his reasoning behind why cap and trade will work is

One objection — the claim that carbon taxes are better than cap and trade — is, in my view, just wrong. In principle, emission taxes and tradable emission permits are equally effective at limiting pollution. In practice, cap and trade has some major advantages, especially for achieving effective international cooperation.
Not to put too fine a point on it, think about how hard it would be to verify whether China was really implementing a promise to tax carbon emissions, as opposed to letting factory owners with the right connections off the hook. By contrast, it would be fairly easy to determine whether China was holding its total emissions below agreed-upon levels.
The more serious objection to Waxman-Markey is that it sets up a system under which many polluters wouldn’t have to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases — they’d get their permits free. In particular, in the first years of the program’s operation more than a third of the allocation of emission permits would be handed over at no charge to the power industry.
Now, these handouts wouldn’t undermine the policy’s effectiveness. Even when polluters get free permits, they still have an incentive to reduce their emissions, so that they can sell their excess permits to someone else. That’s not just theory: allowances for sulfur dioxide emissions are allocated to electric utilities free of charge, yet the cap-and-trade system for SO2 has been highly successful at controlling acid rain.

Koggit

07-05-2009, 07:23 PM

I don't know. Paul Krugman's article about it is pretty convincing.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/18/paul-krugman-waxman-markey-carbon-taxes-cap-and-trade/

He states why cap and trade will work and be better than a carbon tax. And, seeing as how he's a nobel prize winning economist, I believe him.

maybe i'm missing something... what i just read was "this bill sorta sucks, but it's better than a direct carbon tax. the worst part is that corrupt politicians will be bribed for credits."

which is part in support of what i said and part unrelated. i do not support a carbon tax, which krugman is arguing against, because that has the exact same problem as cap & trade: it's regressive. Tax Foundation and Warren Buffett agree... it's a regressive tax, rural customers have more carbon-heavy electricity, already pay the most for electricity, have lower income, and will see the largest increase in energy costs...

UncleBob

07-05-2009, 07:49 PM

Why is it you are eager to believe that our representatives are looking out for our best interest in health care reform, but would quickly be open to corruption in the case of energy and pollution reform?

HowStern

07-05-2009, 07:52 PM

evanft

07-05-2009, 07:52 PM

HowStern

07-05-2009, 07:56 PM

Oh, lol. Sorry XD I went a bit overboard. Internet..sarcasm detection..etc, etc.

Koggit

07-05-2009, 08:06 PM

I think we are both missing something :P Because I didn't see that except for "It's not the best bill we could have gotten."

He doesn't state anything about being able to bribe politicians for permits? He states polluters will be able to sell their permits if they are able to meet the standards and no longer need them. If they can't meet the emission standards they will need the permit
he stated it in a pretty muted, low-key manner... but it's pretty blunt:
Krugman is more concerned about the allocations, although not for the reason you might think:

The more serious objection to Waxman-Markey is that it sets up a system under which many polluters wouldn’t have to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases — they’d get their permits free. In particular, in the first years of the program’s operation more than a third of the allocation of emission permits would be handed over at no charge to the power industry.

Now, these handouts wouldn’t undermine the policy’s effectiveness. Even when polluters get free permits, they still have an incentive to reduce their emissions, so that they can sell their excess permits to someone else. That’s not just theory: allowances for sulfur dioxide emissions are allocated to electric utilities free of charge, yet the cap-and-trade system for SO2 has been highly successful at controlling acid rain.

But handing out emission permits does, in effect, transfer wealth from taxpayers to industry. So if you had your heart set on a clean program, without major political payoffs, Waxman-Markey is a disappointment.

Yes, the allocation is a disappointment to many, including me. But the pro-allocation forces had the political mojo. And so we move on.

That is their incentive to improve. The money they can make. They will want to upgrade their facilities (creating jobs in the process) to meet emissions standards and have the ability to sell off the free permits with their new "greener" and cheaper energy. Like is available in bigger cities like you said.

And like Krugman says. The cap and trae on S02 has worked despite everyone claiming it would cripple the American power industry in 1990. But look at how it has worked
http://www.epa.gov/captrade/maps/so2.html

SO2 worked because it can be easily scrubbed from emissions... such is not the case of CO2

HowStern

07-05-2009, 08:26 PM

Ah, I took the payoff thing to mean about Pelosi. And her investments, etc. And any other politicans that applies to. Not so much as a bribe deal.

elprincipe

07-05-2009, 09:52 PM

^lol at the foxnews numbers.

First it was $3,000 a family annually for the energy plan now they are saying $71,00 a family per decade?

That's cute. Maybe 2% of Americans are in a tax bracket high enough to see that kind of increase. Maybe.

They aren't Fox News numbers. There are plenty of good analyses around that don't leave out most of the cost, like CBO did in their analysis that seemed so low. Here are a couple:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/energyandenvironment/wm2503.cfm
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-17-2007/0004664103&EDATE

And allow me to :lol: at your claim that only 2% of Americans in high tax brackets will see energy tax increases. The hardest hit will be the poor, who will have to choose between their prescription and driving to work, or between heating their house and eating. All to supposedly decrease temperatures by 0.1 degrees C by 2100. What a wonderful and reasonable trade-off!

I think the healthcare benefit tax is Obama's way of saying "Look it, retards. If you don't pass my health care reform bill our health care industry is going to bankrupt us. (Because it is. We are spending three times as much per person than France, who has the highest rated healthcare service in the world) So, I'm going to have to start taxing it."

Do I think it will actually happen if the health care reform bill doesn't pass? Not a chance in the long. But Fox News is going ot take it and run.

I'm not sure why you're so fixated on Fox News. They must be getting under your skin pretty well.

Our health care system needs reform. I think just about everyone agrees with that. The problem is that Obama's plan will increase costs, not decrease them (by $1.6 trillion using latest estimates). Therefore, saying that Obama's health care reform plan will fix our government's fiscal mess is either propaganda or idiocy.

And Paul Krugman called everyone who voted against this dreadful piece of legislation a "traitor to the planet." The small amount of respect I had for the honesty of his positions is now gone. So, Paul (and those who agree with him), who is a bigger traitor to the planet? Those who pretend this bill will do anything significant about carbon dioxide emissions in a vain attempt to get political brownie points or those who voted against it?

HowStern

07-05-2009, 10:01 PM

No way will health care reform cost us more. Like I said France does what Obama wants to do and they spend 3 times less than us per person. Not to mention they are the number 1 health care service in the world.

And I'm not believing those other numbers. It's the same song and dance that happened when S02 went under cap and trade. Like Koggit said it may be harder to c02 emissions than it was s02, but in my opinion, it needs to be done. We can't keep sucking at big oil's teet. We need renewable energy. It will be cheaper in the long run and safer.

camoor

07-05-2009, 11:50 PM

fullmetalfan720

07-06-2009, 10:05 AM

This cap and trade bill is a bunch of bullshit. No one was allowed to read the full bill until one copy was handed out about a hour before it was voted on to John Boehner. Not only will this bill be a complete invasion of privacy, with the required home energy audits, but you will be forced to only use government approved light fixtures and such. Plus this bill will kill the middle class, and the poor by raising their cost of living, and making it hard for them to afford food, (takes carbon based energy to make it, and transport it), heating and cooling (that ought to be great in Minnesota, you choose between heating in the winter, and going to work), and afford driving to work. This bill will also drive all carbon based energy jobs out of the US and into China, and other places, where there are no cap & trade laws. If you still think this bill is actually going to do something, other then kill jobs, and destroy the middle class, and the poor, just look at spain. They instituted a cap & trade system, lost 2.2 million jobs, but now they have some "green" jobs that cost something like $80,000 a piece.

On health care: I would hope that the Obama administration, and Congress doesn't decide to create a federal sales tax to pay for the health care reform, because that would only destroy the economy further, and destroy the middle class and poor.

HowStern

07-06-2009, 11:05 AM

The energy audits are for newly constructed houses only. Not families. There will be no invasion of privacy. It is to make sure all new houses built are built under the new standard. This will save people $$ due to the fact all new houses will be much more energy efficient.

speedracer

07-06-2009, 11:39 AM

fullmetalfan, I haven't read it and honestly don't know shit about the bill but those are some heavy statements. Could you source these for me?
Not only will this bill be a complete invasion of privacy, with the required home energy audits
you will be forced to only use government approved light fixtures and such

UncleBob

07-06-2009, 11:45 AM

The full 1,400+ page bill is available here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454eh.txt.pdf - if anyone is interested.

HowStern

07-06-2009, 12:14 PM

And no where in those 1,400+ pages will you find anything stating your current home will need to be audited or use government approved lighting fixtures in your house.

Like I said the audit is for construction companies and applies to all new houses being built. They must meet the new energy efficiency standard.

All this misinformation is what scares people away from moving forward with the things we need to do.
The devil you know, etc..

mykevermin

07-06-2009, 12:27 PM

Jesus people, the euphemism is that ignorance is BLISS, not that ignorance is FEAR AND DISTRUST.

Ignorance - you're doing it wrong.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-06-2009, 12:59 PM

I welcome being taxed into oblivion.

If the wife has to choose between TV and heat, maybe she'll choose heat.

After TV has been cleaned out of her system for a few months and our ribs are showing through our clothes, maybe she'll figure out happiness is knowing what you need and taking it.

Then again, she might keep the TV humming. I'll just have to sneak food to the kids so she dies from starvation first.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-06-2009, 01:22 PM

Jesus people, the euphemism is that ignorance is BLISS, not that ignorance is FEAR AND DISTRUST.

Ignorance - you're doing it wrong.

I always have a hard time believing one singular act is going to destroy this country or our collective ridiculously wasteful lifestyle on purpose.

Of course, we know our representatives don't read the bills they vote on. Who really knows? <shrug>

fullmetalfan720

07-06-2009, 01:40 PM

fullmetalfan720

07-06-2009, 01:46 PM

All this misinformation is what scares people away from moving forward with the things we need to do.

Yes, we totally need these new taxes. Especially the poor. We should keep taxing them, until they are forced to all live on the street. Then the middle class will become the poor, and we can just do the same thing to them. Keep raising the cost of living, and taxes, on people who can't pay them through this bill and a national sales tax.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-06-2009, 01:52 PM

On page 351, it talks about how residential buildings will be retrofitted, for energy efficiency, and to be up to federal code. This process will involve home energy audits.
Starting on page 356, the bill talks about the audits. They will be conducted by contractors, using RESNET standards, which can be found here:http://www.natresnet.org/standards/audit/National_Energy_Audit_Standard.pdf

I read about this on the crazy forums. They're calling it "Cap and Rape".

They're screaming about how government agents are going to enter your home in violation of the 4th amendment.

AND

Nobody will be able to sell their home unless it passes the inspection.

AND

Nobody will be able to buy a new house because of how expensive the updates will be.

AND

Nobody will be able to keep their house because taxes on energy will effectively bankrupt them.

...

Let's pretend all of this is true. Millions of people have frozen to death in the winter of 2009 and died from heat prostration in the summer of 2010. Now, it is election day 2010. Will you vote for douchebag A who will do nothing or douchebag B who will do nothing or do something else?

HowStern

07-06-2009, 02:15 PM

On page 351, it talks about how residential buildings will be retrofitted, for energy efficiency, and to be up to federal code. This process will involve home energy audits.
Starting on page 356, the bill talks about the audits. They will be conducted by contractors, using RESNET standards, which can be found here:http://www.natresnet.org/standards/audit/National_Energy_Audit_Standard.pdf

Wow...You clearly didn't even read it. It says public housing and low-income housing are the only residential buildings to be affected by the retrofitting under the guidelines of RESNET. -Definitions start at Page 348 Line 21 Sec 202

The costs of these can not be used to increase rent of residents of such housing. page 360 line 20 (b)

Energy efficiency means less energy and water wasted. Means long term savings. And like the bill says the charges can not be passed on to the tenants.

Private homes will not be affected. No one's privacy will be intruded upon.
What you are ranting and raving about is a draft of the bill that did not make it to the final cut. And even then it only applied to people selling their homes.

Read Here: http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/green_team/Copy_of_wwlp_green_billmayforcehomeenergyaudits_20 0907011800

Like I said you're spreading misinformation.

camoor

07-06-2009, 02:16 PM

Let's pretend all of this is true. Millions of people have frozen to death in the winter of 2009 and died from heat prostration in the summer of 2010. Now, it is election day 2010. Will you vote for douchebag A who will do nothing or douchebag B who will do nothing or do something else?

Whch one gives flowery speeches about hope and change? :D

fullmetalfan720

07-06-2009, 02:22 PM

I read about this on the crazy forums. They're calling it "Cap and Rape".

They're screaming about how government agents are going to enter your home in violation of the 4th amendment.

AND

Nobody will be able to sell their home unless it passes the inspection.

AND

Nobody will be able to buy a new house because of how expensive the updates will be.

AND

Nobody will be able to keep their house because taxes on energy will effectively bankrupt them.

...

Let's pretend all of this is true. Millions of people have frozen to death in the winter of 2009 and died from heat prostration in the summer of 2010. Now, it is election day 2010. Will you vote for douchebag A who will do nothing or douchebag B who will do nothing or do something else?

Here's what is going to happen. The price of energy is going to go up, the price of food, and everything else is going to go up, because everyone is going to need carbon credits to use most types of energy. The cost of heating and cooling your home will go up. All of this will disproportionately hurt the poor, and the middle class, because they spend more of their income on essentials. Lots of people will lose their jobs, if there job is dependent on fossil fuels. Those people's jobs will likely move to China. This will further hurt the economy, and possibly bring us into a depression worse than the Great Depression. Let me repeat something for you. This bill will destroy the poor. They will not be able to keep up with the rising costs of energy, and the essentials, which almost all use fuels that produce "greenhouse gases," and therefore their prices would go up under this bill. The middle class will also drastically be hurt by this bill, with increases in the cost of everything, and the further loss of manufacturing jobs. This is why this bill cannot pass. It does nothing to help the environment, and yet it destroys the poor, and the middle class.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-06-2009, 02:56 PM

<a lot of stuff that makes sense> ... it destroys the poor, and the middle class.

They had it coming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

Notice any similarities?

trq

07-06-2009, 05:10 PM

LULZ. Republicans care about the poor all of a sudden.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-06-2009, 05:23 PM

LULZ. Republicans care about the poor all of a sudden.

Republicans want strong poor people. Luggage is heavy.

trq

07-06-2009, 05:55 PM

Republicans want strong poor people. Luggage is heavy.

Suckers. You know, if you keep 'em on welfare so they don't have to work, they get nice and soft ... like veal.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-06-2009, 06:11 PM

Suckers. You know, if you keep 'em on welfare so they don't have to work, they get nice and soft ... like veal.

That's only if you keep them inside watching TV and surfing the internet.

elprincipe

07-06-2009, 09:29 PM

No way will health care reform cost us more. Like I said France does what Obama wants to do and they spend 3 times less than us per person. Not to mention they are the number 1 health care service in the world.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why you think CBO's analysis of Waxman-Markey, in which they specifically state they leave out the effects of job losses and GDP losses (a huge part of the cost), is perfectly valid, yet their estimation of $1.6 trillion for Obama's health care plan is invalid. Please help me out on that one.

And I'm not believing those other numbers. It's the same song and dance that happened when S02 went under cap and trade. Like Koggit said it may be harder to c02 emissions than it was s02, but in my opinion, it needs to be done. We can't keep sucking at big oil's teet. We need renewable energy. It will be cheaper in the long run and safer.

Again, just "I don't believe it" isn't much of an argument. If you have a competing analysis or feel they are wrong for whatever reason, let's hear it. I told you why I think the CBO Waxman-Markey estimate is lowballed, and that is using their own description of their analysis.

Also, if you think W-M will take us away from "big oil" you're sadly mistaken. I would like us to get to less fossil fuels as well (who doesn't?), but current renewable technologies are not good enough for mass replacement of our oil/gas/coal energy supplies. We need to create wealth so that we have enough money to research new energy sources. If we want to reduce coal/gas/oil, a good idea, we should be building breeder reactors like crazy. But wishful thinking alone will not solve this problem, and you can't mandate technological breakthroughs.

elprincipe

07-06-2009, 09:39 PM

Here's what is going to happen. The price of energy is going to go up, the price of food, and everything else is going to go up, because everyone is going to need carbon credits to use most types of energy. The cost of heating and cooling your home will go up. All of this will disproportionately hurt the poor, and the middle class, because they spend more of their income on essentials. Lots of people will lose their jobs, if there job is dependent on fossil fuels. Those people's jobs will likely move to China. This will further hurt the economy, and possibly bring us into a depression worse than the Great Depression. Let me repeat something for you. This bill will destroy the poor. They will not be able to keep up with the rising costs of energy, and the essentials, which almost all use fuels that produce "greenhouse gases," and therefore their prices would go up under this bill. The middle class will also drastically be hurt by this bill, with increases in the cost of everything, and the further loss of manufacturing jobs. This is why this bill cannot pass. It does nothing to help the environment, and yet it destroys the poor, and the middle class.

I'll go further: people will DIE because of this bill if it passes. Electricity prices will double and gas/natural gas/fuel oil prices are expected to increase 60+ percent. Keep in mind that food and other commodities take energy to produce and transport, and you're looking at a more than doubling of the price of food. So 60+ percent increase in your travel to get food, doubling or more of the price of food, and doubling of the energy needed to cook the food. Do I (a) eat only one meal a day now? (b) walk two miles to the store and back? (c) not heat my home today? (d) go deeper and deeper into debt? (e) all of the above? Good thing we're "saving the planet" with all this sacrifice! That 0.1 degree C by 2100 (remember, this is the prediction of proponents of this lunacy!) is going to make all the difference, right?

fullmetalfan720

07-06-2009, 09:46 PM

I'll go further: people will DIE because of this bill if it passes. Electricity prices will double and gas/natural gas/fuel oil prices are expected to increase 60+ percent. Keep in mind that food and other commodities take energy to produce and transport, and you're looking at a more than doubling of the price of food. So 60+ percent increase in your travel to get food, doubling or more of the price of food, and doubling of the energy needed to cook the food. Do I (a) eat only one meal a day now? (b) walk two miles to the store and back? (c) not heat my home today? (d) go deeper and deeper into debt? (e) all of the above? Good thing we're "saving the planet" with all this sacrifice! That 0.1 degree C by 2100 (remember, this is the prediction of proponents of this lunacy!) is going to make all the difference, right?

I agree, and like I said, this bill will (literally) kill the poor.

HowStern

07-06-2009, 10:02 PM

I'm having a hard time figuring out why you think CBO's analysis of Waxman-Markey, in which they specifically state they leave out the effects of job losses and GDP losses (a huge part of the cost), is perfectly valid, yet their estimation of $1.6 trillion for Obama's health care plan is invalid. Please help me out on that one.

I never said anything about CBO's analysis of Obamas health care plan. I said that France does what Obama wants to do and they pay 1/3 of what we do per person annually for health care.

Again, just "I don't believe it" isn't much of an argument. If you have a competing analysis or feel they are wrong for whatever reason, let's hear it. I told you why I think the CBO Waxman-Markey estimate is lowballed, and that is using their own description of their analysis.

Also, if you think W-M will take us away from "big oil" you're sadly mistaken. I would like us to get to less fossil fuels as well (who doesn't?), but current renewable technologies are not good enough for mass replacement of our oil/gas/coal energy supplies. We need to create wealth so that we have enough money to research new energy sources. If we want to reduce coal/gas/oil, a good idea, we should be building breeder reactors like crazy. But wishful thinking alone will not solve this problem, and you can't mandate technological breakthroughs.

It was claimed that the S02 cap and trade program would cost $6 billion annually. It only cost 20%-30% of that at $1.1b-$1.8b annually.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

It was a complete success. In more ways than one.

elprincipe

07-07-2009, 02:35 AM

I never said anything about CBO's analysis of Obamas health care plan. I said that France does what Obama wants to do and they pay 1/3 of what we do per person annually for health care.

You quote CBO for Waxman-Markey but "don't believe" the numbers they list for health care. The U.S. is not France and the Obama plan is not France's plan, nor is any plan under consideration.

It was claimed that the S02 cap and trade program would cost $6 billion annually. It only cost 20%-30% of that at $1.1b-$1.8b annually.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

It was a complete success. In more ways than one.

I'm happy it was a success. However, SO2 and CO2 are vastly different substances, and not just because one has sulfur and one carbon. CO2 is emitted by every animal on Earth, including ourselves. It is emitted by 86% of our energy production. It is emitted by most of our forms of transportation. It is emitted by agriculture. So you see, it's not merely putting a scrubber on a smokestack that will satisfy the requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. And to top that off, the technology to sequester carbon dioxide is still being developed, as are other technologies that hopefully will be able to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, even if it were as simple as buying a new scrubber for that power plant's smokestack, there isn't a scrubber available that can do what our idiot Congress is mandating they do.

And keep in mind this entire argument is based on unproven theories, and that even if we were to undertake a huge expense to reduce CO2 emissions the result would, according to proponents, decrease temperatures by 0.1 degrees C in 100 years' time. This is a horribly bad tradeoff even if you are fully convinced of the science, and pretty much a complete and total waste if it turns out not to be the case.

To sum up:

If global warming is real = horrible deal
If global warming isn't real = horrible deal
If global warming is real but less than predicted = horrible deal
If global warming is worse than predicted = horrible deal

But don't worry, a vast new bureaucracy to enforce these regulations, which would reach into every aspect of our lives, will be on the way. Hallelujah.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece

Koggit

07-07-2009, 03:40 AM

we really should've had a cap & trade thread

fatherofcaitlyn

07-07-2009, 10:16 AM

we really should've had a cap & trade thread

Cap and trade is a flavor of the month. Whether it passes or fails, we'll continue to have meaningless protests afterwards.

HowStern

07-07-2009, 10:31 AM

You quote CBO for Waxman-Markey but "don't believe" the numbers they list for health care. The U.S. is not France and the Obama plan is not France's plan, nor is any plan under consideration.

Where are you getting this idea? I never quoted cbo for waxman-markey. And, yes, Obama's plan is a lot like Frances.
We clearly are not France as our healthcare prices are sky high and not 99% of us are covered.

I'm happy it was a success. However, SO2 and CO2 are vastly different substances, and not just because one has sulfur and one carbon. CO2 is emitted by every animal on Earth, including ourselves. It is emitted by 86% of our energy production. It is emitted by most of our forms of transportation. It is emitted by agriculture. So you see, it's not merely putting a scrubber on a smokestack that will satisfy the requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. And to top that off, the technology to sequester carbon dioxide is still being developed, as are other technologies that hopefully will be able to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, even if it were as simple as buying a new scrubber for that power plant's smokestack, there isn't a scrubber available that can do what our idiot Congress is mandating they do.

And keep in mind this entire argument is based on unproven theories, and that even if we were to undertake a huge expense to reduce CO2 emissions the result would, according to proponents, decrease temperatures by 0.1 degrees C in 100 years' time. This is a horribly bad tradeoff even if you are fully convinced of the science, and pretty much a complete and total waste if it turns out not to be the case.

To sum up:

If global warming is real = horrible deal
If global warming isn't real = horrible deal
If global warming is real but less than predicted = horrible deal
If global warming is worse than predicted = horrible deal

But don't worry, a vast new bureaucracy to enforce these regulations, which would reach into every aspect of our lives, will be on the way. Hallelujah.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece

Except the auditors (or the "green police" as your article calls them...) will be inspecting buildings. Not animals, not people. So, half this argument doesn't make sense. Yes, all living things put out c02. But we can't eliminate that. We can however eliminate how much polluting a factory does.

Whether it will financially pan out is yet to be seen.
The S02 cap and trade worked perfect though. So, we'll see. I know Europe is having trouble with their cap and trade on C02. But I don't think it has been quite the apocalypse you think it will be.

mykevermin

07-07-2009, 10:42 AM

Energy prices have skyrocketed in recent decades in spite of an absence of taxes and legislation tacked onto them.

Nobody died. Well, okay, on guy in Michigan was found in his kitchen with his oven open and on; but he had a mental condition and didn't pay his utility bill at all in several months, despite having more than enough money to do so.

But, so we're on the level here:
1) higher energy costs = DEATH AND DEATH AND DEATH! But,
2) we're living amidst higher energy costs and haven't experienced "death and death and death"
3) oh, it's coming anyway, this time we'll die from taxes!
4) so if I'm clear on this, higher energy costs stemming from profit-hungry free markets = no death and a laissez faire attitude from a number of people. Hey, they might say, it's the free market!

-yet-

5) (proposed, and not even real yet!) higher energy costs stemming from a transition to more energy efficient means has led to outrage among those content in #4, and a claim that death and death and death will occur.

So the important argument to take away is that the messenger, and not the message, is what is fatal.

riiiiiiight.

UncleBob

07-07-2009, 12:19 PM

Wow...You clearly didn't even read it. It says public housing and low-income housing are the only residential buildings to be affected by the retrofitting under the guidelines of RESNET. -Definitions start at Page 348 Line 21 Sec 202

The costs of these can not be used to increase rent of residents of such housing. page 360 line 20 (b)

Energy efficiency means less energy and water wasted. Means long term savings. And like the bill says the charges can not be passed on to the tenants.

Who does get to pay for the retrofitting of the houses, if not the people who use them?

depascal22

07-07-2009, 12:37 PM

The public pay but recoup the investment in savings down the road.

UncleBob

07-07-2009, 12:44 PM

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

If I'm paying to fix up someone's house to recoup savings later, I'd rather spend that money on my own home first.

depascal22

07-07-2009, 12:47 PM

It's public housing so it is your home. It's available to any American making jack shit.

UncleBob

07-07-2009, 01:03 PM

I don't think we need special housing for doctors that specialize in helping constipated patients named "Jack"... ;)

depascal22

07-07-2009, 01:28 PM

Then you shouldn't really be complaining that those poor fools in public housing are getting an upgrade to their shitty houses. One that will save all of us money in the long run.

UncleBob

07-07-2009, 01:47 PM

When my own housing could use those upgrade, but I can't afford them because 30%+ of my pay goes into taxes to pay for people who didn't earn my money? I think I can complain.

Want to save us money in the long run? Revamp the government housing program. Instead of making it something that's actually nice, let's make it something that's functional only to the point where it provides basic shelter (protection from the elements, indoor plumbing, heat in the winter, etc.) Turn it into an apartment/condo/jail like system. Make it something people actually strive to get out of.

HowStern

07-07-2009, 02:07 PM

Who does get to pay for the retrofitting of the houses, if not the people who use them?

The landlord. It's only public housing/low income housing.

Sort of like how the landlord is responsible if the apartment has lead paint and you have a child under 3 you want to move in with.

The landlord is required by law to pay for the de-leading, can not deny you the right to move-in if he doesn't feel like paying for it, and can not make you pay for it.

Msut77

07-07-2009, 02:08 PM

but I can't afford them because 30%+ of my pay goes into taxes to pay for people who didn't earn my money

Do you really believe all of the taxes you pay goes to poor people?

fatherofcaitlyn

07-07-2009, 04:57 PM

Do you really believe all of the taxes you pay goes to poor people?

Mine do. Every year, I attach a note to my tax return that reads:

"Please send my collected taxes to poor people. I want to hate them."

...

I like UncleBob's idea of public housing, but want to go further. Let's have one outhouse and one water fountain outside next to a creek or river for every 15 people.

depascal22

07-07-2009, 05:57 PM

fatherofcaitlyn

07-07-2009, 06:13 PM

Let's go even further and only provide electricity during certain hours. And make sure the buildings look like old Warsaw Pact housing. Every house will be required to have a picture of Obama prominently displayed.

Sweet. <high five>

How about letting the owners of the building receive sexual favors from the more attractive members of the housing community in exchange for heat, food or drugs?

UncleBob

07-07-2009, 11:22 PM

fullmetalfan720

07-07-2009, 11:47 PM

Energy prices have skyrocketed in recent decades in spite of an absence of taxes and legislation tacked onto them.
Energy prices have skyrocketed, huh? They haven't skyrocketed, inflation has skyrocketed. In 39 years the dollar has lost something like 90% of its value. When you adjust the price for inflation, you see that energy prices have for the most part held steady over the past 50 years.
Electricity
(Cents per Kilowatthour, Including Taxes)
Residential
Year Nominal Real (In 2000 dollars) (As in the year 2000)
1960 2.6 12.4
1965 2.4 10.7
1970 2.2 8.0
1975 3.5 9.2
1980 5.4 10.0
1985 7.39 10.60
1990 7.83 9.60
1995 8.40 9.12
2000 8.24 8.24
2005 9.45 8.36
2008 11.36 9.28
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_39.pdf
There is a similar pattern with the other sources of energy, (oil, natural gas,) if you want to look it up for yourself.
Think for a second what a +60% hike in electricity prices would mean. 14.848 (in 2000 dollars) cents per kwh. 18.176 cents per kwh in todays dollars. It may not seem like a lot to some of you, but consider the fact that the cost of living would instantly go up 60%. Why? Almost everthing we use today uses a fuel that emits carbon dioxide. People making enough money to keep up with the poverty line would suddenly have to make 60% or so more. For a three person family this jumps from $18,310 to $29,296. How are they supposed to make around $11,000 more?
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml
4) so if I'm clear on this, higher energy costs stemming from profit-hungry free markets = no death and a laissez faire attitude from a number of people. Hey, they might say, it's the free market!
There are few if not no 60% increases in the price of energy in recent history. The only situations I can think of that might apply are the oil shocks of the 1970s, but those were mostly because of bad foreign policy decisions. But, OMG!! the free markets are evil! We must give control of everything to the government, because they're so smart, and so not corrupt. They always do things right!

5) (proposed, and not even real yet!) higher energy costs stemming from a transition to more energy efficient means has led to outrage among those content in #4, and a claim that death and death and death will occur.Yeah, this bill will solve all of our problems! Especially the job ones, because they will just dissapear to China. If I can't see something, its not there! Never mind that this bill doesn't really help the cheapest, and least carbon dioxide emitting souce of energy, nuclear power. Instead it hopes someone figures out how to make wind, and solar and the like work, for a large amount of our energy needs, because if not, we're screwed.
Also, going back to my point earlier, how would a poor person increase their income enough to pay for the huge new cost of living? Are they going to eat a meal a day? Live at work? Lose their job beacuse they can't afford to get to work? Go without heat in the winter, or colling in the summer? That's why you will see deaths. People won't be able to keep up with the cost of living, and have to go without essientials. And what will this bill really do to help Americans? Nothing.

Msut77

07-08-2009, 08:47 AM

See, y'all are doing the same slippery slope crap...

No.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to provide cheap - but basic - housing to low income families/individuals.

They aren't put into McMansions by any means and I see no reason create buildings that stick out like scarlet letters to make you feel better.

mykevermin

07-08-2009, 09:59 AM

I wasn't aware that natural gas and petrol were sold by the Kw/hour.

The more I know, huh?

fullmetalfan720

07-08-2009, 10:44 AM

I wasn't aware that natural gas and petrol were sold by the Kw/hour.

The more I know, huh?

Oh, so you have no real point, just that I forgot a word, that you could easily figure out. You're real brilliant.

mykevermin

07-08-2009, 10:57 AM

depascal22

07-08-2009, 11:52 AM

See, y'all are doing the same slippery slope crap that the people who say "If you let the gays get married, you have to let people marry dogs!"

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to provide cheap - but basic - housing to low income families/individuals.

No. We're just showing you how retarded it is to punish people just to make a point or force them to change behavior. You want to put poor people in the equivalent of a debtor's prison just because you don't like them.

Before you mention cigarrette smoking, realize that smoke affects even the people that don't smoke especially small children trapped in cars with smokers and employees trapped in restaurants with smokers.

Being poor does affect many more people but it's not like you can just go cold turkey and not be poor.

UncleBob

07-08-2009, 12:12 PM

No. We're just showing you how retarded it is to punish people just to make a point or force them to change behavior. You want to put poor people in the equivalent of a debtor's prison just because you don't like them.

Cheap, basic housing would not only serve to help individuals want a better life, but would also allow our government to provide more housing with the same amount (or even less) funds.

It's not the government's place to make people feel better. I'd even argue that it's not the government's place to ensure people have a place to live, but I recognize the importance of helping the poorest members of our nation. If it was because I "don't like them", I wouldn't even want to provide them with basic housing. I'd say, let them live like poor people in other countries (say, African or South American countries...)

If we can serve more people with less money, isn't that better? Isn't that what you believe the health care reform proposal will do?

Msut77

07-08-2009, 01:04 PM

I'd say, let them live like poor people in other countries (say, African or South American countries...)

Why those countries?

Why not any countries in western Europe?

fatherofcaitlyn

07-08-2009, 01:26 PM

I wasn't aware that natural gas and petrol were sold by the Kw/hour.

The more I know, huh?

Natural gas will cost more because of the energy expended to extract, store and ship it.

It may not go up as much as coal, but there will be some effect.

Will this bill kill people? <shrug> There's that story about camels' backs and straws.

How much higher can unemployment go before riots?

How much higher can food costs go before riots?

How much higher can healthcare costs go before riots?

During those high on the hog times in the dotcom 90's, cap and trade might have bounced off of the resilient Clinton economy. Nobody really knows what it will do with this economy.

HowStern

07-08-2009, 01:32 PM

UncleBob, it's abundantly clear you've never seen Section 8 housing.

There is nothing welcoming about it. And the people are desperate to get out.

The unemployment numbers have nothing to do with people being lazy. There are hard working college graduates who simply can not find work. When it is the governments fault there is no work then I believe it is the governments job to care for the people.
Ideally, the money for this should come from pay-cuts of the politicians responsible. (All of them, basically.)

UncleBob

07-08-2009, 01:46 PM

You will get no argument from me on cutting the pay of politicians. ;)

I've seen some S8 housing that - quite frankly - isn't fit to live in. Then, I've seen some that is better than my own home (and no, my home isn't a dump).

My ideal idea would be to get rid of the unfit housing, replace it with the "condo-like" apartment buildings that provide basic, but small, essential, but functional living quarters for individuals and families.

fullmetalfan720

07-08-2009, 04:53 PM

because electricity powers my gas stove. yes, you're totally right.

remind me to hire you to paint my house, and you can insist that the job is completed when you've done half the rooms I wanted painted.
So you have no real point, just personal attacks?

EDIT: Here's the gasoline and natural gas figures if you want them.
Gasoline (dollars per gallon) (Figures before 1980 are for leaded gas, after are for unleaded)
Residential sector
Year Nominal Real (in year 2000 dollars)
1949 0.27 1.64
1960 .31 1.48
1970 .36 1.30
1975 .57 1.49
1980 1.25 2.30
1985 1.20 1.72
1990 1.16 1.43
1995 1.15 1.25
2000 1.51 1.51
2003 1.59 1.50
2005 2.30 2.03
2007 2.80 2.34
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_57.pdf
Natural Gas (dollars per 1,000 cubic feet)
Residential
Year Nominal Real (in year 2000 dollars)
1967 1.04 4.35
1970 1.09 3.96
1975 1.71 4.50
1980 3.68 6.81
1985 6.12 8.78
1990 5.80 7.11
1995 6.06 6.58
2000 7.76 7.76
2002 7.89 7.57
2004 10.75 9.82
2006 13.73 11.77
2007 13.06 10.90
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec6_19.pdf

Ruined

07-08-2009, 05:12 PM

UncleBob, it's abundantly clear you've never seen Section 8 housing.

There is nothing welcoming about it. And the people are desperate to get out.

The Section 8 housing around here is actually quite nice, and I hear mostly positive feedback about it... From the people I've visited in it, it looked great to me. But its hard to get in, the waiting list is like 2-3 years. Once they get in, people very much tend to hold onto it and thus demand is much greater than supply.

HowStern

07-08-2009, 10:10 PM

UncleBob

07-09-2009, 01:33 AM

Sounds like you should be in favor of a nice, clean, but basic housing then.

elprincipe

07-09-2009, 08:37 AM

When it is the governments fault there is no work then I believe it is the governments job to care for the people.

You're partially right, a good deal of the problem is the government's fault. So government should BUTT THE FUCK OUT. But no no no, instead government makes it its business to attempt to control the entire economy through various means (TARP, taking over the auto industry, adding more regulatory bureaucracy, and to top it off the insane Waxman-Markey legislation that is perilously close to passing). Recent polls show most people want smaller government. The people in this case are right, but Washington (and places like Sacramento and Albany) doesn't care.

And evidently there are plenty on this board who don't care that we'll lose millions of jobs to China and India, that energy prices will double (with the attendant domino effect on everything that takes energy to produce, which means everything needed for our civilization), and that this means the poor especially will be in a world of hurt. Nobody even cares to respond to the fact that all this self-inflicted pain will result in a trivial decrease in temperatures even according to the proponents of the legislation. Facts are a hell of a thing, huh?

elprincipe

07-09-2009, 08:39 AM

So you have no real point, just personal attacks?

Correct. Supporting Waxman-Markey is indefensible. Ergo Paul Krugman: "traitors to the planet." When you have no reasonable argument, attack, attack, attack!

Ruined

07-09-2009, 11:05 AM

Growing up as a teenager I had some friends who lived in Section 8 here. Holy shit. 12 year olds on drugs. Everyone is trying to sell you something, stolen stereos, drugs, stolen bikes, fucking anything, pots and pans and shit.

It's basically a prison for the poor.

Like I said, though, that is not the case everywhere. Around here most people see the Section 8 housing as very attractive, and I have personally visited people in it a number of times. It is not the best housing in the world, but it is comparable to other private apartments in the area. Once they get section 8 around here, people hold on to it vehemently due to its good quality at an incredible price.

Although, the majority of people in said housing around here are 30-60 in age.

mykevermin

07-09-2009, 11:12 AM

Correct. Supporting Waxman-Markey is indefensible. Ergo Paul Krugman: "traitors to the planet." When you have no reasonable argument, attack, attack, attack!

Right. Because it's a personal attack to point out that his initial response, by focusing solely on one type of energy, was therefore incomplete.

I only with the 2008 real values were available. Petrol would skyrocket, and natural gas' growth would be even larger than your chart shows as well.

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 11:21 AM

Right. Because it's a personal attack to point out that his initial response, by focusing solely on one type of energy, was therefore incomplete.

I only with the 2008 real values were available. Petrol would skyrocket, and natural gas' growth would be even larger than your chart shows as well.

So you still have no real argument of why this bill should be passed?

depascal22

07-09-2009, 11:21 AM

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 11:34 AM

If gas prices skyrocket, we'll see real change on how we view transportation and that can be a good thing.

I'd like to see the highly efficient train come back to replace the automobile. Maybe America might become a community again instead of 300 million assholes trying to get to work on time while talking on their cell phone.

How is it a good thing that gas prices go up? All that does is hurt the poor, and the middle class. If gas were to skyrocket, I have a feeling the poor would have a very tough time going to work, or the store to get food. Food prices would skyrocket, and the poor would have trouble being able to keep up with the cost of living.The middle class would also be screwed over, similarly. Ah, but this is all a good thing. Who really cares about the poor, and middle class anyway? What are they going to do? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution)Revolt? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution)

depascal22

07-09-2009, 11:48 AM

How is it a good thing that gas prices go up? All that does is hurt the poor, and the middle class. If gas were to skyrocket, I have a feeling the poor would have a very tough time going to work, or the store to get food. Food prices would skyrocket, and the poor would have trouble being able to keep up with the cost of living.The middle class would also be screwed over, similarly. Ah, but this is all a good thing. Who really cares about the poor, and middle class anyway? What are they going to do? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution)Revolt? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution)

It's revolution time, baby! Americans are too lazy to revolt though. Did the Europeans revolt when their gas went over the equivalent of $7 a gallon? No. They started riding bikes, taking the train, and cutting down on wasteful driving. Behavior changed to fit the times.

Yes. It will be rough on the poor and middle class but it's not like the poor are driving several miles to get to work in the first place. Hell, half of the really poor people around me don't have a license in the first place. Too many DUIs. Those people roll around in DUI mobiles aka scooters and do just fine.

People might actually live closer to work and spend more time with their kids. Is that a bad thing? People get to work relaxed and ready for work instead of wound up from a 35 minute drive through hellish downtown traffic. That helps the family and business productivity. Two things I'm sure conservatives should be behind.

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 12:01 PM

It's revolution time, baby! Americans are too lazy to revolt though. Did the Europeans revolt when their gas went over the equivalent of $7 a gallon? No. They started riding bikes, taking the train, and cutting down on wasteful driving. Behavior changed to fit the times.

Yes. It will be rough on the poor and middle class but it's not like the poor are driving several miles to get to work in the first place. Hell, half of the really poor people around me don't have a license in the first place. Too many DUIs. Those people roll around in DUI mobiles aka scooters and do just fine.

People might actually live closer to work and spend more time with their kids. Is that a bad thing? People get to work relaxed and ready for work instead of wound up from a 35 minute drive through hellish downtown traffic. That helps the family and business productivity. Two things I'm sure conservatives should be behind.

You know, if things get really bad, its possible there might be a revolution. With the potential of this bill to bankrupt many American families, along with a possible national sales tax, the erosion of rights, these ridiculous bills that might actually pass, (Hate Crimes Bill, No Fly, No Buy Act, The Cyberbullying bill, huge new powers for the Fed, ect.) and the suddenly falling support for Obama, people may actually say, Fuck it, I can't stand this anymore, its time for a revolution. The American Revolution started with only around 2% of the population, so it could happen today.

Msut77

07-09-2009, 01:08 PM

Did the Europeans revolt when their gas went over the equivalent of $7 a gallon? No.

We basically have the cheapest gas prices of any country that imports more than it exports. One of the reasons is because the hidden costs of cheap gasoline are well you know hidden.

They started riding bikes, taking the train, and cutting down on wasteful driving. Behavior changed to fit the times.

The car dependent, gasoline guzzling lifestyle we know today was created/subsidized into being. It is silly to think people will revolt en masse because they have to make some lifestyle changes but I don't think you will have much luck deflating fullmetals fantasies.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-09-2009, 01:33 PM

Msut77

07-09-2009, 01:42 PM

The government is slowly losing its ability to subsidize that lifestyle.

Once the rubber hits the road and new taxes are required, I'm sure we'll blame somebody for our collective woes. I'm betting on "emmagants".

Why should life be anything but an old Simpsons episode?

It was fun while it lasted.

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 02:04 PM

The car dependent, gasoline guzzling lifestyle we know today was created/subsidized into being. It is silly to think people will revolt en masse because they have to make some lifestyle changes but I don't think you will have much luck deflating fullmetals fantasies.
Well, apparently you live in denial. This bill won't just be "some lifestyle changes," it will result in many people losing their current lifestyle, and sinking into complete poverty. In case you don't know, when taxes get high enough, there tends to be revolts. With this bill raising the cost of living, so much, I don't see how there won't be riots, and possible revolution. Look at the French Revolution. The government racked up a huge debt, taxes became way too high, the poor were taxed the most, and they revolted, because they couldn't afford enough food. See any similarities? Look at the American Revolution. The Colonists had no representation, huge taxes, little freedoms, and they revolted. See any similarities?

fatherofcaitlyn

07-09-2009, 02:09 PM

It was fun while it lasted.

The Apocalypse will be fun. Whether it is peak oil, killer virus, zombies, solar flare, Skynet, militant homosexuality, Social Security and Medicare/aid insolvency, President Jenna Bush or politicians telling the truth, there will always be the opportunity for fun.

Msut77

07-09-2009, 02:11 PM

Well, apparently you live in denial.

My hats are tinfoil free if that is what you mean.

See any similarities?

No. But then I am what one would call sane.

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 02:26 PM

My hats are tinfoil free if that is what you mean.

No. But then I am what one would call sane.

Oh, so now I'm a conspiracy theorist? Wow.
But I guess this is all the truth: The climate change bill doesn't exist! The American Revolution doesn't exist! The French Revolution doesn't exist! People don't need food to live! There's no such thing as taxes! Energy prices won't go up with this bill! We won't lose any jobs! There will be no global warming because of this bill! We have no debt! There's no such thing as a cost of living! Revolutions are conspiracy theories! Our representatives do everything we want! There is no corruption in our government! There's no gitmo! There's no Hate Crimes Bill, No Fly No Buy Act, or Cyberbullying Bill! Obama's never lied! Politicans never lie! There's no such thing as the Patriot Act! Everyone loves how the government is being run! Everything is perfect! No one would ever want to revolt!

Msut77

07-09-2009, 02:44 PM

Oh, so now I'm a conspiracy theorist? Wow.

It is possible you are merely prone to hysteria and don't know all that much about history.

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 02:51 PM

It is possible you are merely prone to hysteria and don't know all that much about history.

I don't think you know much about history. You apparently don't know why revolutions happen. Also, you don't actually have a reason why this bill should pass, you just resort to personal attacks. Just like everyone else who is for this bill.

Msut77

07-09-2009, 03:08 PM

I don't think you know much about history.

I know plenty about history. I would point out more than you but that isn't much of an achievement.

You apparently don't know why revolutions happen.

I heard your screeching.

Meanwhile if you weren't a complete know nothing when it comes to history you might have known that tax rates are lower than they were not all that long ago, that the government has been in debt more often than not (and in even worse shape before) or that government corruption isn't new (and that if they didn't revolt during the bush years they ain't gonna revolt now). As for lifestyle changes, people were upset when GM et al. started buying and dismantling streetcars but they didn't revolt.

I ain't even going to touch your ramblings about the American or French Revolution.

you just resort to personal attacks.

It is not a personal attack to point out that your posts contain more than a soupcon of hysteria and a dash of crazy.

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 03:16 PM

I know plenty about history. I would point out more than you but that isn't much of an achievement.

Personal attack.

heard your screeching.

Meanwhile if you weren't a complete know nothing when it comes to history you might have known that tax rates are lower than they were not all that long ago, that the government has been in debt more often than not (and in even worse shape before) or that government corruption isn't new (and that if they didn't revolt during the bush years they ain't gonna revolt now).

I ain't even going to touch your ramblings about the French Revolution.

Since when has the government been in more debt than now? When has there been more taxes then there will be under this bill? When has government been more corrupt then now? When was the last time there were tea parties, about taxes? When was the last time the government decided that the Constitution doesn't matter?

It is not a personal attack to point out that your posts contain more than a soupcon of hysteria.
Do you have a reason why this bill should pass? Yes, or no?

Ruined

07-09-2009, 03:19 PM

If gas prices skyrocket, we'll see real change on how we view transportation and that can be a good thing.

I'd like to see the highly efficient train come back to replace the automobile. Maybe America might become a community again instead of 300 million assholes trying to get to work on time while talking on their cell phone.

Why would anyone want their freedom of private transportation taken away? If one likes public transportation then take it, but others don't want the government taking away or restricting through excessive taxation our usage of private transportation.

snipped

Why do you have to use personal attacks in your postings so much msut? A solid argument is able to stand on its own without requiring personal attacks to prop it up. Strengthen your argument instead of blunting it with unnecessary jabs. Using them only makes it appear like you are unable to provide a credible argument, relying on those attacks as your cover.

depascal22

07-09-2009, 03:33 PM

Why would anyone want their freedom of private transportation taken away? If one likes public transportation then take it, but others don't want the government taking away or restricting through excessive taxation our usage of private transportation.

I'm not saying that people want to have private transportation taken away. I'm saying that it will be a good thing for America as a whole if gas prices were so high that people are forced to choose alternatives.

You'll think the same way in 20 years when there are more cars on the road. Most major cities are are already crippled during the morning and evening rush hours. Roads are gridlocked. How is that going to get better if more people drive? The solution is to build more roads.

So it's OK to pump more and more dollars into a system of roads already on the brink of collapse but we shoudn't work on making people use alternatives so we can still use the roads we have now?

Msut77

07-09-2009, 03:36 PM

Personal attack.

Not really.

I know quite a bit about history.

You? Very little as seen below.

Since when has the government been in more debt than now?

As a percentage of GDP? Basically the 40's and some of the 50's.

When has there been more taxes then there will be under this bill

The highest tax rate in this country used to be 90%, other brackets were higher than they are now as well. The burden did shift a bit to put it mildly, as for "under this bill" there is no doubt your fears are overblown and the costs to lower income people (who you ostensibly are focusing on) are negligible according to what I have read.

When has government been more corrupt then now?

Ever? Or in American history?

When was the last time there were tea parties, about taxes?

About taxes without representation or what?

depascal22

07-09-2009, 03:42 PM

These tea parties shouldn't be associated with the ones 250 years ago. This isn't about taxation without representation.

Ruined

07-09-2009, 03:46 PM

I'm not saying that people want to have private transportation taken away. I'm saying that it will be a good thing for America as a whole if gas prices were so high that people are forced to choose alternatives.

You'll think the same way in 20 years when there are more cars on the road. Most major cities are are already crippled during the morning and evening rush hours. Roads are gridlocked. How is that going to get better if more people drive? The solution is to build more roads.

So it's OK to pump more and more dollars into a system of roads already on the brink of collapse but we shoudn't work on making people use alternatives so we can still use the roads we have now?

But, if 20yrs from now the roads actually are so gridlocked and there is so much more traffic to the point that driving is a hassle, people will switch to public transportation naturally because it will be easier and faster.

There is no reason that an artificial attempt to limit peoples freedom through excessive taxation/gas prices needs to be performed. Gas prices need not play a factor in your scenario, the balance will be maintained naturally simply by time & convenience.

Msut77

07-09-2009, 04:01 PM

I'm not saying that people want to have private transportation taken away. I'm saying that it will be a good thing for America as a whole if gas prices were so high that people are forced to choose alternatives.

You'll think the same way in 20 years when there are more cars on the road. Most major cities are are already crippled during the morning and evening rush hours. Roads are gridlocked. How is that going to get better if more people drive? The solution is to build more roads.

So it's OK to pump more and more dollars into a system of roads already on the brink of collapse but we shoudn't work on making people use alternatives so we can still use the roads we have now?

I don't think Ruined understands what it means when people point out the fact that the lifestyle we have now was basically a creation of the government for good and for bad.

This isn't so much about "teh gubberment" taking things away as it is times changing and priorities.

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 04:18 PM

Not really.

I know quite a bit about history.

You? Very little as seen below.

As a percentage of GDP? Basically the 40's and some of the 50's.

I never said debt as a percentage of GDP. If you look at our total debt, even with inflation, it is the highest it has ever been. If you look at how much debt there is per person, it is the highest it has ever been.

The highest tax rate in this country used to be 90%, other brackets were higher than they are now as well. The burden did shift a bit to put it mildly, as for "under this bill" there is no doubt your fears are overblown and the costs to lower income people (who you ostensibly are focusing on) are negligible according to what I have read.As for taxes, I am talking about the overall tax burden on everyone. This bill would raise the cost of energy by 60%. This would then cause the price of almost everything to go up by a similar amount, because almost everything uses a fuel that emits carbon. If you think a 60% increase in prices is negligible, wow.

Ever? Or in American history?Your choice.
About taxes without representation or what?No, about the fact that people were pissed off about raising taxes. Although, its not like we have very good representation these days anyway...

depascal22

07-09-2009, 04:20 PM

But, if 20yrs from now the roads actually are so gridlocked and there is so much more traffic to the point that driving is a hassle, people will switch to public transportation naturally because it will be easier and faster.

There is no reason that an artificial attempt to limit peoples freedom through excessive taxation/gas prices needs to be performed. Gas prices need not play a factor in your scenario, the balance will be maintained naturally simply by time & convenience.

So what happens when people are fed up 20 years from now and demand public transportation? The government will throw up their hands and say it'll take at least 20 years to get everything up and running. Maybe we should've done something about this a long time ago.

Here's one example. Solar panels have been proven to lower utility costs and provide clean renewable energy. There's really no reason why every house in America doesn't have a set but what do we see now? People would rather pay for power because it's easy and there's no initial investment other than a security deposit if you have bad credit. When will people switch over? It's already convenient and cost effective.

You think this bill might force people to look at solar or wind and decide to not pay the man for power? Shouldn't conservatives be behind the move to make America self-reliant? I just don't get you guys.

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 04:24 PM

So what happens when people are fed up 20 years from now and demand public transportation? The government will throw up their hands and say it'll take at least 20 years to get everything up and running. Maybe we should've done something about this a long time ago.

Here's one example. Solar panels have been proven to lower utility costs and provide clean renewable energy. There's really no reason why every house in America doesn't have a set but what do we see now? People would rather pay for power because it's easy and there's no initial investment other than a security deposit if you have bad credit. When will people switch over? It's already convenient and cost effective.

Solar panels cost a large amount of money, and take a long time to pay back their initial investment, right now. However, where we have come in 20 years in solar development is amazing. Maybe, when the price goes lower, solar panels will be a better option.

Msut77

07-09-2009, 04:30 PM

I never said debt as a percentage of GDP.

That is generally the way these things are measured.

Otherwise you end up with "Back in my day bread cost a nickel" style comparisons.

I am talking about the overall tax burden on everyone.

Again it isn't significantly higher either way and in some cases lower. As for the costs of the energy bill (you are intentionally confusing the differences between taxes and costs having to be paid for anyway just like some do with healthcare) they aren't much for lower income people and there is a lot in the way of benefits.

Your choice.

This ought to be fun.

No, about the fact that people were pissed off about raising taxes.

You think taxes were the main thing and the "no representation" part was what exactly?

fullmetalfan720

07-09-2009, 08:48 PM

That is generally the way these things are measured.

Otherwise you end up with "Back in my day bread cost a nickel" style comparisons.

That's why you adjust for inflation.

Again it isn't significantly higher either way and in some cases lower. As for the costs of the energy bill (you are intentionally confusing the differences between taxes and costs having to be paid for anyway just like some do with healthcare) they aren't much for lower income people and there is a lot in the way of benefits.

Its a "stealth tax." Almost everything has a "carbon footprint," and therefore the price would go up. Becoming poorer is not a benefit.

This ought to be fun.

You think taxes were the main thing and the "no representation" part was what exactly?
You don't understand what I said. I wasn't talking about the Boston Tea Party, so much as I was talking about people gathering in large groups and protesting how high taxes are.

elprincipe

07-10-2009, 12:38 AM

The Apocalypse will be fun. Whether it is peak oil, killer virus, zombies, solar flare, Skynet, militant homosexuality, Social Security and Medicare/aid insolvency, President Jenna Bush or politicians telling the truth, there will always be the opportunity for fun.

Have I mentioned lately how much you add to this board? Seriously.

elprincipe

07-10-2009, 12:45 AM

Oh, here's what the head climate guy (although he's not a climatologist, but an astronomer...yes, an astronomer is in charge of our temperature measurement and analysis in this country) thinks about the pile that 219 of our esteemed jerkwads voted for:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html

The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It's less than worthless

If you don't know, this guy is an extremist on this issue, calling coal trains "death trains" and testifying in defense of British vandals who did thousands of pounds of damage to a new coal-fired power plant in the U.K. He was also recently arrested protesting coal mining methods in West Virginia. But of course he's a neutral scientist when it comes to the temperature data and analysis that "proves" global warming, or climate change, or whatever we're calling it this year. :roll:

Msut77

07-10-2009, 02:53 AM

That's why you adjust for inflation.

There is quite a bit more to it than that. If you want it to be apples to apples (which you probably don't).

You don't understand what I said. I wasn't talking about the Boston Tea Party, so much as I was talking about people gathering in large groups and protesting how high taxes are.

You compared it to the Boston Tea Party earlier and that is what the 'baggers are aping. Now you just look like you are trying to wriggle out of your past words.

fullmetalfan720

07-10-2009, 10:14 AM

There is quite a bit more to it than that. If you want it to be apples to apples (which you probably don't).
Yeah, there's in increase in GDP, so the debt is supposed to increase, or something like that. The thing is, today there is more debt per person, adjusted for inflation than then. Plus we have all these unfunded obligations, which someday are going to need to be payed. When you add those in, we end up owing much more than the national debt. During the 40s we had no where near as many of those unfunded obligations. Also, back in the 40s we actually payed off our debt. Now, we need the Federal Income Tax just to pay off interest on the debt. Then you look at how we ended up with the debt, and you see that today, it is for wasteful projects, and wars that we fight for no real reason, while in the 1940s it was created because of the war, and new deal.

You compared it to the Boston Tea Party earlier and that is what the 'baggers are aping. Now you just look like you are trying to wriggle out of your past words.
I said, when was the last time people had tea parties to protest taxes, or something similar.) What else am I suppose to call the gatherings, instead of tea parties? That's what they are known as.

Also, I'd just like to know. Do you have any reason why the Waxmen-Markey bill should pass?

Msut77

07-10-2009, 11:06 AM

The thing is, today there is more debt per person, adjusted for inflation than then.

Again there is much more to it than that.

Then you look at how we ended up with the debt, and you see that today, it is for wasteful projects, and wars that we fight for no real reason

I am not going to say that isn't a part of it but the reason why we have so much of a deficit/debt is that Cons actually believe in a "starve the beast" strategy and it became fashionable not to have to pay for shit.

I said, when was the last time people had tea parties to protest taxes, or something similar

You did make reference to the actual tea party, I don't consider the 'baggers protesting anything coherent instead they seem to focus on Obama's birth certificate and other nonsense.

fullmetalfan720

07-10-2009, 01:10 PM

Again there is much more to it than that.

I am not going to say that isn't a part of it but the reason why we have so much of a deficit/debt is that Cons actually believe in a "starve the beast" strategy and it became fashionable not to have to pay for shit.
Oh, so its all the Conservatives fault? No, its the democrats, and the republicians. Neither of them know how to manage money at all. The repubs borrow and spend, and the democrats tax and spend.

You did make reference to the actual tea party, I don't consider the 'baggers protesting anything coherent instead they seem to focus on Obama's birth certificate and other nonsense.Oh, so the people who go to these tea parties all think Obama wasn't born here? Really? That's some stereotyping right there.

BTW, I'm going to ask you again. Why is it that this Waxman-Markey bill should pass?

Msut77

07-10-2009, 01:22 PM

Oh, so its all the Conservative's fault?

Not "all" just most of it.

Oh, so the people who go to these tea parties think about wasn't born here

Anyone care to translate?

fullmetalfan720

07-10-2009, 01:51 PM

Not "all" just most of it.

Anyone care to translate?

I should probably stop writing anything on my ipod touch. Its always screwing things up.

Edit: All fixed.

fullmetalfan720

07-10-2009, 01:55 PM

Not "all" just most of it.

That's like someone who killed someone with a friend saying, "well, I only stabbed him 5 times, and my friend stabbed him 7, so, uh....., I didn't really kill him. It was the other guy."

Msut77

07-10-2009, 02:59 PM

That's like someone who killed someone with a friend saying, "well, I only stabbed him 5 times, and my friend stabbed him 7, so, uh....., I didn't really kill him. It was the other guy."

That is exactly what it isn't like.

so the people who go to these tea parties all think Obama wasn't born here?

That is what many of them think, the stated reasons don't really hold water as seen above.

fullmetalfan720

07-10-2009, 03:54 PM

That is exactly what it isn't like.

That is what many of them think, the stated reasons don't really hold water as seen above.
You're ridiculous. You're another one of these people who think Democrats good:bow:, Republicans bad:evil:. I bet you still think Obama is going to bring "Change." In reality, both of the parties don't care about you, they only care about themselves. Now, are you ever going to answer my question? Why should this Waxman-Markey Bill pass?

Msut77

07-10-2009, 04:13 PM

You're ridiculous.

I am knowledgeable.

You're another one of these people who think Democrats...

No.

I have been around long enough to have been disappointed by the Democratic party numerous times so you can go ahead and cram that BS. However in this case it happens to be undeniably the reality.

fullmetalfan720

07-10-2009, 04:25 PM

I am knowledgeable.

No.

I have been around long enough to have been disappointed by the Democratic party numerous times so you can go ahead and cram that BS. However in this case it happens to be undeniably the reality.
Oh, really? Then why are you constantly saying Conservatives and Republicians are murderous, crazy lunatics?

Msut77

07-11-2009, 01:49 AM

Then why are you constantly saying Conservatives and Republicians are murderous, crazy lunatics?

Well the ones who are figureheads for the movement and even some of their elected officials are a collection of (for lack of a better word) bugfuck insane people who constantly demonize liberals as treasonous subhuman commie-terrorist enablers.

From Glenn Beck inventing concentration camps for Republicans out of whole clothe to Rush Limbaugh basically wishing for a coup and Michelle Bachmann calling entire swathes of the country anti-american the list is unending.

What I have said constantly is that many buy into it and it is hardly surprising some of those in the movement act on what they are told.

BTW I take this an admission you are not going to even pretend to argue that there is anything resembling equal blame for the deficit/debt.

fullmetalfan720

07-11-2009, 02:22 PM

BTW I take this an admission you are not going to even pretend to argue that there is anything resembling equal blame for the deficit/debt.
No, I will. Let's start off with the bailouts. Whose idea was it to create the bailouts? The Democrats. Who signed it into law? A Republican.
There's around 3 trillion:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123851108664173877.html
The War On Terror, which was started by the Republicans, and continued by the Democrats, will cost 3 trillion dollars, just in Iraq:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
These are two recent examples of the Democrats and the Republicans together creating huge debts. With the bailouts could the Republicans together have stopped them? Yes, but they didn't. With the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, could the Democrats together have stopped them? Yes, but they didn't. As you can see, both the Democrats, and the Republicans, are both equally responsible for our huge debt. Either of them could have stopped these bills that have created huge debts, but they didn't. The only party who has had a filibuster proof majority is the Democrats, so its not like they couldn't have blocked any major spending bills that would have created huge debts.

paddlefoot

07-11-2009, 03:36 PM

So what happens when people are fed up 20 years from now and demand public transportation? The government will throw up their hands and say it'll take at least 20 years to get everything up and running. Maybe we should've done something about this a long time ago.

Here's one example. Solar panels have been proven to lower utility costs and provide clean renewable energy. There's really no reason why every house in America doesn't have a set but what do we see now? People would rather pay for power because it's easy and there's no initial investment other than a security deposit if you have bad credit. When will people switch over? It's already convenient and cost effective.

You think this bill might force people to look at solar or wind and decide to not pay the man for power? Shouldn't conservatives be behind the move to make America self-reliant? I just don't get you guys.

Off topic

I don't know if it is true or not, but from what I have heard, building something like a bullet train from San Fran to L.A. is a nightmare because of all the legal battles. Lawyers put it in limbo for a decade or more. Any truth to this?

Msut77

07-11-2009, 03:52 PM

No, I will

I doubt it.

Let's start off with the bailouts.

Let's not. For something like this it would be better to go in chronological order rather than deal with the special circumstances of recent times as Jesse Ventura put it "where Obama has to clean up George W's mess".

Whose idea was it to create the bailouts? The Democrats. Who signed it into law? A Republican.

I must have missed it where it was purely the Democrats idea to create the bailout.

Also there is a distinction between just having enormous deficit and debt and say creating it with no plan whatsoever to pay it off as a matter of policy.

The War On Terror, which was started by the Republicans, and continued by the Democrats, will cost 3 trillion dollars, just in Iraq:

I am not saying Democrats are completely clean on this matter but for in many cases their biggest crime was deciding to trust W and crew. Big mistake.

And once again there is a difference between debt/deficit during a war and flat out refusing to pay for any of it. We are the only civilization ever that has cut taxes during a war.

are both equally responsible for our huge debt.

No. Like I said in the first part of my response, there is no particular (well for you maybe, so lets just say good) reason to focus on just the very recent past and just ignore decades of history and fiscal policy.

fullmetalfan720

07-12-2009, 11:29 AM

Let's not. For something like this it would be better to go in chronological order rather than deal with the special circumstances of recent times as Jesse Ventura put it "where Obama has to clean up George W's mess".
Well, considering that we just created over 12.8 trillion in new debt, let's.

I must have missed it where it was purely the Democrats idea to create the bailout.Let's see, who introduced the bill? Patrick Kennedy D-RI. Which party were most of the co-sponsors from?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1424
Which party's presidential candidate gave a speech on how members of congress should support it? Here's his speech:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Obama_senate_10_01_08.ogg
Also, which party voted overwhelmingly to pass this bailout? Well, you can see for yourself right here:http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll101.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213#top
Here's the answer to all of those questions. The Democrats.
Also, how in the hell did we end up with $12.8 trillion in spending?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4&refer=worldwide
As you can see the bulk of the money was spent by the Federal Reserve. Who was that created by? Some Democrats back in 1913.
Also there is a distinction between just having enormous deficit and debt and say creating it with no plan whatsoever to pay it off as a matter of policy.I haven't seen any plan to pay off 12.8 trillion. Have you?
I am not saying Democrats are completely clean on this matter but for in many cases their biggest crime was deciding to trust W and crew. Big mistake.

And once again there is a difference between debt/deficit during a war and flat out refusing to pay for any of it. We are the only civilization ever that has cut taxes during a war.

No. Like I said in the first part of my response, there is no particular (well for you maybe, so lets just say good) reason to focus on just the very recent past and just ignore decades of history and fiscal policy.Oh, I didn't. Didn't you read the last part of my post? About how the Democrats, at all times, or the Republicans, at many times could have filibustered bad monetary policy, or bills that created large amounts of debt. Then what about the Federal Reserve? Created by Democrats. They print the money, and we have to borrow it from them at interest. We owe the majority of our national debt to the Fed.
Now, I'm not saying all of our problems are the Democrats' fault. They are the fault of the corrupt two party system that lies to get elected. There have been a few honest people who have come out of it in the past 50 years, (John F. Kennedy was probably the last president who actually cared about the people of this country, but of course then he was assassinated.) There are some good people in Congress right now, and there have been a few politicians to actually not be corrupt, and liars in the past few years, but they are heavily outnumbered by the typical Democrats, and Republicans, who say and do anything to get elected, and then do nothing they said they were going to do.

Msut77

07-12-2009, 04:51 PM

Well, considering that we just created over 12.8 trillion in new debt, let's.

I saw the other thread.

Have you figured out the difference between spent and pledged yet?

The only reason you choose to ignore history is because you have no argument otherwise.

Also, which party voted overwhelmingly to pass this bailout?

It was fairly bipartisan.

As you can see the bulk of the money was spent by the Federal Reserve. Who was that created by? Some Democrats back in 1913.

You are the one arguing to focus purely on the extremely recent past, as I said above it certainly isn't for any honest reasons and only as it suits whatever you think you are arguing.

I haven't seen any plan to pay off 12.8 trillion. Have you?

I have seen some of his plans to bring down the debt and deficit, some of them even look worthwhile. However this wouldn't be the first time you talk about projections covering very long periods of time and pretend they are anything but.

Oh, I didn't.

Your use of "Oh____" is getting a little old. Short answer no you didn't.

fullmetalfan720

07-12-2009, 05:06 PM

I saw the other thread.

Have you figured out the difference between spent and pledged yet?

Have you seen the video I posted? 8 trillion gone. The rest will be gone soon.
The only reason you choose to ignore history is because you have no argument otherwise.

I'm not ignoring history, you are saying that I am, and you haven't pointed out these times in history where it was all the Republicans fault.

It was fairly bipartisan.
Totally

You are the one arguing to focus purely on the extremely recent past, as I said above it certainly isn't for any honest reasons and only as it suits whatever you think you are arguing.
No, I'm not arguing about only the present time, I just brought up the recent instantces of government spending crazy amounts of money. You however have no examples, past or present.

I have seen some of his plans to bring down the debt and deficit, some of them even look worthwhile. However this wouldn't be the first time you talk about projections covering very long periods of time and pretend they are anything but.
Could you please link to these plans? I'd love to see them.

Your use of "Oh____" is getting a little old. Short answer no you didn't.

Oh shit! My use of Oh has pissed off msut. Oh shit! Oh well, who cares.

Msut77

07-12-2009, 05:52 PM

I'm not ignoring history

That is exactly what you are doing and it is blindingly obvious why.

you haven't pointed out these times in history where it was all the Republicans fault.

And to think you sound almost genuinely upset when someone points out you don't know all that much about history.

You can do a google search for something like "national debt by president" and get charts showing when debts rose and when they fell. Under Reagan and the Bushies debts skyrocketed mostly because of their ideology under Clinton it leveled out. Under Obama it is increasing but then these are interesting times we live in, a lot of the money being spent is the piper finally getting paid so to speak.

Totally

Enough to say "fairly".

I'm not arguing about only the present time

I have noticed that you brought up the founding of the federal reserve when you think it suited whatever you think you are arguing.

Could you please link to these plans?

This is another example of something you could have found out through a quick search, one thing I am pretty sure I have pointed out is that healthcare reform usually cited as a cost can actually be a big step in deficit reduction since healthcare costs are a major factor in what is spent (a big part of) of the something like 33 Trillion over the next decade according to the CBO.

fullmetalfan720

07-12-2009, 11:40 PM

..................................
I don't see any links.

Msut77

07-13-2009, 02:30 AM

I don't see any links.

I told you among other things what would you need to do a proper google search.

Your fingers obviously aren't broken so what is your excuse?

fullmetalfan720

07-13-2009, 11:22 AM

I told you among other things what would you need to do a proper google search.

Your fingers obviously aren't broken so what is your excuse?

So basically you want me to find the articles to prove your point? Right.........
I thought you were knowledgeable about history? If you are, you shouldn't have to ask me to prove your point.

Msut77

07-13-2009, 11:30 AM

I thought you were knowledgeable about history.

Among other things.

fullmetalfan720

07-13-2009, 12:41 PM

Among other things.
Again, you have no real point, do you?

Msut77

07-13-2009, 12:46 PM

Again, you have no real point, do you?

I made plenty of points.

In this thread.

What I don't have is the willingness to indulge in spoonfeeding you or your pretense that you have an argument.

UncleBob

07-13-2009, 12:49 PM

Msut - It's not at all unfair for someone to ask you for a source on your "facts". If you cannot provide a source when asked, then don't expect anyone to believe you or care about your opinion that you've formed around these "facts" that you cannot or will not provide.

Msut77

07-13-2009, 12:55 PM

Bob,

It is a fact for example that charts exist tracking national debt, some are even broken down by presidential terms.

Notice I didn't source the definition of GDP either in an earlier post because it is expected for someone who is technically an adult to know these things and insulting to say they don't.

The only thing I am refusing to do is play a very silly game.

fullmetalfan720

07-13-2009, 01:04 PM

Bob,

It is a fact for example that charts exist tracking national debt, some are even broken down by presidential terms.

Notice I didn't source the definition of GDP either in an earlier post because it is expected for some who is technically an adult to know these things and insulting to say they don't.

The only thing I am refusing to do is play a very silly game.
No, you have no facts, just mind games.

Msut77

07-13-2009, 01:10 PM

Are you trying to dispute the fact that there are charts that track the debt and deficit or the fact that such charts are easy to find?

You have had trouble doing internet searches in the past so I guess it is possible but at this point...

fullmetalfan720

07-13-2009, 01:11 PM

Msut77

07-13-2009, 01:18 PM

Again, are you actually going to back up your ideas with facts, or should I just ignore you?

I don't care what you do, although just to make sure I was fair in stating that you were merely playing games I triple checked to make sure pretty much everything I stated was easily found in a two second search.

Did you know what the GDP was before I referred to it? If you didn't were you capable of say finding the definition?

fullmetalfan720

07-13-2009, 01:28 PM

I don't care what you do, although just to make sure I was fair in stating that you were merely playing games I triple checked to make sure pretty much everything I stated was easily found in a two second search.
Then why haven't you posted it?

Msut77

07-13-2009, 01:30 PM

Then why haven't you posted it?

Why bother?

Are you incapable of doing the same search?

Just say so if that is the case.

RAMSTORIA

07-13-2009, 02:48 PM

look what i found in a quick internet search...

I also asked them to break down the percentage of the political and law enforcement population into the reptilian species we 'know' or have read about controlling us OR grounded in the reptilian agenda.

Politicians (reptilian):
Federal government 75 percent
State governments 63 percent
Local politicians 80 percent
Police and other Law Enforcement
Reptilian 68 percent
Saurians associated with the reptilian agenda 21 percent
Others associated with reptilain agenda 6 percent

Military
Leadership (Reptilian) 86 percent
Body of military " 55 percent

dotn worry fullmetal, msut is just following his MO of insults and insisting hes right and someone else is wrong. in all my time i dont think ive ever once seen msut post to a link or source.