What happened to Global Warming?

By on June 20, 2013 9:54:31 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

ZombiesRus5

Join Date 02/2009
+324

What happened to Global Warming?

When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.

Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in

 

I'd like some global warming back...

 

2913 Replies +1
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 10:10:52 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,

Hrm, this is a major issue that I haven't gotten into, but this might be the appropriate time.

The claims of doom and gloom for the economy are almost certainly overstated.

Certainly switching to a greener economy will cause great economic change.  And every time you see great economic change, you see the old guard whining to high hell about how the economy will suffer.  I mean, when computers come around, look at all the people who complained about how many people would be put out of work.  You can go back to so many major inventions and see the same thing.

Switching to a greener economy creates a lot of jobs too.  Now, I'm not saying that it will completely offset the economic hurdles that will come about.  By no means am I saying that at all.  But a lot of the doomsayers just concentrate on the negatives, while not adding on some of the entire new industries that appear in the process.

Anyway, the price has to be paid sometime, and the earlier you start paying, the lower the price.

It's easy for someone living in the United States (as I see you do from your profile) to say "the price has to be paid sometime".  You live in a country that can afford the change.  If some all powerful being/alien/government enforced your mythical changes tomorrow you know what would happen in the US?  We'd figure it out.  We'd adjust.  You'd still have smartphones and plenty of food and great healthcare and, probably, a job and certainly consistent power.  If you're a 1st worlder this change screws with the fringes of your life most likely.  You have less disposable income, maybe eat out a little less or get a new smartphone less often.  You travel less often or can't drive as often because you can't afford as much fuel for your car (whatever that fuel is).  It probably messes with geopolitical stability some, so maybe there is more political tension in the future between the US and it's adversaries.  

What if you're in the developing world?  This change fucks you.  Completely.  You're quality of life trajectory, and that of your kids and grandkids, just flat lined because you're country can't afford these newfangled changes.  You're country with no stability, no real power grid, no government able to protect expensive sites just lost any hope it had of dragging itself into the modern world.  

That's the whole point of waiting.  A few more decades and the technology will be cheap.  Right now, it's not.  Unless you let 3rd world countries stay with the status quo and if you're going to do that, what's the point of changing anything at all?  

This is the same old rich 1st world progressive magic bullet that sounds good on the surface, but the moment you bother to look below the surface it all falls apart in unintended consequences and unexpected costs.  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 10:19:46 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
Sure. But where do you want to draw the line?

I think that this was determined a bit over 200 years ago.  Its the Constitution.  If you can get enough votes, you can get the government to do what you want.  Unless its prohibited by the Constitution.  Forcing people to buy Start8 would probably be ruled unconstitutional, electric car subsidies are generally not.

Quoting Frogboy,
So what is that price? I mean that seriously. You have alluded to various studies on the matter. Ok. What is the cost? What is the benefit? Specifically.

What do you want?  I don't have a number, and I don't think that anybody does.

The price is that many less businesses will have to retool to be "greener".  This is expensive, which will make them will make products more expensive for consumers and make many businesses less competitive.  Governments will probably have to spend money on stuff like infrastructure (power grids!), which will require some combination of higher taxes or less spending in other areas.

Ultimately, I'm advocating an approach where individuals absorb the inevitable cost over a reasonably long time, instead of having to take a more shock like hit at a later time (which would potentially be much more devastating to the economy).  Ultimately, I'm not expecting that others will magically take care of this stuff for me.  I realize that all these costs are going to come down to individuals like me.  I just want the costs to be spread out over the longest time possible.

The benefit is that we don't mess up the world for ourselves and especially for our children.  We don't risk catastrophic disruption to our food supply.  We don't risk having to move a very large fraction of the human population as cities become less habitable.  I'm sure you are aware of the doom and gloom stuff from the more pessimistic models. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 11:01:17 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,


What do you want?  I don't have a number, and I don't think that anybody does.

The price is that many less businesses will have to retool to be "greener".  This is expensive, which will make them will make products more expensive for consumers and make many businesses less competitive.  Governments will probably have to spend money on stuff like infrastructure (power grids!), which will require some combination of higher taxes or less spending in other areas.

Ultimately, I'm advocating an approach where individuals absorb the inevitable cost over a reasonably long time, instead of having to take a more shock like hit at a later time (which would potentially be much more devastating to the economy).  Ultimately, I'm not expecting that others will magically take care of this stuff for me.  I realize that all these costs are going to come down to individuals like me.  I just want the costs to be spread out over the longest time possible.

The benefit is that we don't mess up the world for ourselves and especially for our children.  We don't risk catastrophic disruption to our food supply.  We don't risk having to move a very large fraction of the human population as cities become less habitable.  I'm sure you are aware of the doom and gloom stuff from the more pessimistic models. 

All for a "coming catastrophe" that no one can put a number on, no one can put a timeline on, no one can say what percentage of the catastrophe is actually caused by man and no one can say that we can actually have some measurable impact on improving the problem, if it exists.  

Sign me up.  I'd much rather disrupt the world economy and screw over the developing world than wait the few decades until the technologies that will essentially make this problem vanish are ubiquitous through the normal progress of technology.  Anything is fine with me, as long as we do something (because inaction is always BAD!) and as long as it makes me feel better about myself.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 11:05:22 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

The last couple, three pages of replies have reminded me of the old saw about how to become a millionaire:

First, ya get a million bucks...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 11:27:44 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 573Sure. But where do you want to draw the line?

I think that this was determined a bit over 200 years ago.  Its the Constitution.  If you can get enough votes, you can get the government to do what you want.  Unless its prohibited by the Constitution.  Forcing people to buy Start8 would probably be ruled unconstitutional, electric car subsidies are generally not.

Er. That's  not actually how the constitution works.

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

People don't just get to vote themselves whatever they like. It's a government, not a wishing well. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 11:46:56 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,


Quoting Krazikarl, reply 577

Quoting Frogboy, reply 573Sure. But where do you want to draw the line?

I think that this was determined a bit over 200 years ago.  Its the Constitution.  If you can get enough votes, you can get the government to do what you want.  Unless its prohibited by the Constitution.  Forcing people to buy Start8 would probably be ruled unconstitutional, electric car subsidies are generally not.


Er. That's  not actually how the constitution works.

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

People don't just get to vote themselves whatever they like. It's a government, not a wishing well. 

 

Damnit!  Now you tell me.  

I threw those pennies at the White House and I've been waiting for my pony all this time...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 9, 2013 11:50:30 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
Er. That's  not actually how the constitution works.

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

People don't just get to vote themselves whatever they like. It's a government, not a wishing well. 

I was speaking in terms of both federal and more local governments, not just federal laws.

Also, given how broadly the Elastic Clause has been interpreted, its more or less how the federal government works in the practical sense.

I mean, the government just mandated that Congress can force you to buy health insurance from a private company and it got upheld.  You can stretch that Elastic Clause pretty far in practice.

Quoting Kantok,
All for a "coming catastrophe" that no one can put a number on, no one can put a timeline on, no one can say what percentage of the catastrophe is actually caused by man and no one can say that we can actually have some measurable impact on improving the problem, if it exists.  

Read things like the IPCC report.  These are exactly the kinds of things that that sort of report does.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 1:50:08 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

No matter the magnitude of spin, the IPCC is a political entity, not a scientific organization, and its reports are intended for a political audience.  And if a railroad engineer can be its chairman...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 5:52:21 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Kantok,
All for a "coming catastrophe" that no one can put a number on, no one can put a timeline on, no one can say what percentage of the catastrophe is actually caused by man and no one can say that we can actually have some measurable impact on improving the problem, if it exists.

Sure you can. A 2ppm/year increase in CO2 is a slow-moving trainwreck like no other.

The only real question is, do you want to pay for averting a far-away disaster now, or are you selfish and do you want future generations to pay for it.

The IPPC doesn't really predict any kind of disaster. It predicts a conservative 1 degree rise in (average) temperature, I don't think that will blow anyone's mind, not even mine.

The real problem is, whether you want to go on like this for 100 more years and find this increase acceptable and that you hope that the 22nd century people will take action. That some big hope you have. You take the risk that in the 22nd century, people will still think the same as we in the 21st century - that there's nothing to worry, that another 1 degree rise in temperatue is no problem. And so on.

In other words, do you trust future generations after we've shown them for 100 years that we don't give a shit and that there is nothing to worry about ?

Exactly like we have 100 years of steady increase of CO2 level and temperature to look back on and nobody gives a damn?

Or do you want to show them how one can take responsibility and how one can prevent a disaster on a timeline and scale that we've rarely witnessed before in the entire history of our planet.

As far as I'm concerned, the potential for disaster is mind-blowing, I don't trust future generations that they'll make the right choice, I would prefer that people wake up and take action sooner than later.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 8:10:18 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting GeomanNL,


The only real question is, do you want to pay for averting a far-away disaster now, or are you selfish and do you want future generations to pay for it

See this is the problem with AGW true believers. If you disagree with the scripture you must be greedy or selfish or stupid or a puppet for some evil super group bent on world domination and the eradication of all puppies. You must bow down to the IPCC altar or your motivations are evil. It's a convenient and lazy way to delegitimize whatever your opponent might say before they can even say it. It can't possibly be a good faith honest disagreement of opinion.

My initial reaction to being called selfish would normally be to tell you to go fuck yourself, but that would be bad form and not very productive so instead I will say this.

Nothing in the IPCC report convinces me that this problem is so catastrophic and so immediate that we can't wait for natural technological progression to solve it for us. I see no need to upend the world economy and crush developing nations hopes for prosperity for a problem that will start being solved with no extra effort over the next few decades.

Further, I think the holier than thou attitude of proponents, combined with the screeching anytime someone important disagrees also combined with the fact that AGW pro politicians just happen to usually have some sort of ownership stake or interest in all the AGW miracle cure companies makes this whole thing smell like an elaborate snake oil sale. 

Maybe I'm wrong and maybe AGW is real, immediate and actually solvable, but the fact that you can't have a real discussion about it, an inherently scientific topic, without your motives being called into question just sits wrong with me. Too much bluster and not enough substance.

And can we please stop quoting the IPCC as if it is the be all and end all. It's an arm of the UN, a political body. One of the shadiest and most corrupt in the world. It's a report, like any other, but generated by an organization that is hugely biased. That doesn't mean it isn't relevant, but it certainly means it should be treated with skepticism.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 9:19:49 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Kantok,



Quoting Borg999,
reply 568

What is it about electric cars you don't like? The gov't takes money away from people (taxes) and uses it for all sorts of things.



The problem is do-gooderism never runs out of uses for other people's money.  That's Brad's whole point.  The solutions to these problems ALWAYS revolve around taking money from people and using it for all sorts of things.  

You and Brad keep on saying "taking money away from other people" or "using other peoples money", but that's what taxes are. Whether it's to buy new military equipment, subsidize school lunches or bridge maintenance.

I guess my question is: when are taxes just taxes, and at what point do taxes transform into "taking money away from people".

From your perspective, what's the break point?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 9:26:05 AM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Borg999,
I guess my question is when are taxes just taxes, and at what point do taxes transform into "taking money away from people".

Oh that's easy.....when it's a NEW tax ...

People put-up-with whatever is the status quo ...necessary evil, and all that....but impose a new fee/levy/tax over and above whatever's there now and the question will be a resounding  'WHY?'

If the 'benefit' of paying this new tax is not abundantly clear...or is simply clouded in rhetoric the resistance will be volatile.

Such is life...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 10:02:17 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,



Quoting Borg999,
reply 569

Ok, I just read your last post. You have an issue subsidizing consumer products.

Fair enough. I agree.

But I would say that if you live outside a city, a car is a necessity.


Sure. But where do you want to draw the line?

I think the Windows Start button is a necessity. The government should subsidize (i.e. give money to people) to buy Start8. 

And really, quality of life demands a fun strategy game.  As a society, we should decide that we NEED Fallen Enchantress. Therefore, the government should subsidize the cost of getting.  Think of all the jobs I could create if all those rich people were forced to give people a little of their money so that everyone could afford Fallen Enchantress. 

I propose government subsidies for all our products. Not because I'm greedy. But because I'm a hero.

I'm not sure where to begin here. It doesn't help a debate if you interpret everything your opponent says in the most extreme way. You keep on insisting that I'm some sort of radical comminist bent on anarchy. Yo also keep on insisting that I want to give cars away and take your after tax income and redistribute it to the masses. That is simply not the case.**

From your anti-dog eat dog law comment, you appear to be against private sector subsidies of any kind. You believe that a business should be able to stand on its own merrits without gov't assiatnce.

I agree with you on both points, but that is not how how the current system works. There are plently of profitable private sector industries that are addicted to their gov't subsidy. I would love to see the plug pulled on that, but I don't have the money to hire a lobbyst.

 

**If you think I'm a commie..well, everything is relative. I could provide you a link to a forum where about 1/3 of the members are so far to the left they are swimming in the deep end. I get a headache every time I try to have a discussion with them.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 5:30:45 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Borg999,


Quoting Kantok, reply 575


Quoting Borg999,
reply 568

What is it about electric cars you don't like? The gov't takes money away from people (taxes) and uses it for all sorts of things.



The problem is do-gooderism never runs out of uses for other people's money.  That's Brad's whole point.  The solutions to these problems ALWAYS revolve around taking money from people and using it for all sorts of things.  


You and Brad keep on saying "taking money away from other people" or "using other peoples money", but that's what taxes are. Whether it's to buy new military equipment, subsidize school lunches or bridge maintenance.

I guess my question is: when are taxes just taxes, and at what point do taxes transform into "taking money away from people".

From your perspective, what's the break point?

That's a pretty easy answer:

Money is exchanged for goods and services. That's what my taxes should be doing for me and my family.  If my taxes are being given to someone else that is not providing me with a good or service then I object to that.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 6:19:56 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
That's a pretty easy answer:

Money is exchanged for goods and services. That's what my taxes should be doing for me and my family.  If my taxes are being given to someone else that is not providing me with a good or service then I object to that.

You are welcome to believe that, but you will probably have to move to another country.  And, as far as I'm aware of, none of those other countries will be first world countries.

The US's Constitution gives the government the power to tax, and it expressly tells the government to provide for the welfare of the people, so you have serious objections to the document which defines our government.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 6:24:31 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Borg999,


You and Brad keep on saying "taking money away from other people" or "using other peoples money", but that's what taxes are. Whether it's to buy new military equipment, subsidize school lunches or bridge maintenance.

I guess my question is: when are taxes just taxes, and at what point do taxes transform into "taking money away from people".

From your perspective, what's the break point?

 

Taxes are always just taxes. The problem lies in the fact that "tax more and throw money at the problem" is ALWAYS the solution. Always, always, ALWAYS.  And if you happen to think that it isn't always the solution the you are evil or cruel or greedy or some other nonsense argument. 

The break point occurs whenever someone wants more of my family's savings for their personal poorly thought out feel good project. Nearly every progressive grand plan magic bullet idea had ended up costing more than we were told, accomplishing less than we were promised and causing whole reams of new problems. And magically, the solution to those unintended problems is always a new expensive magic bullet that just kicks the cycle of again.

That's "do-gooderism". Projects that sound great on the surface but more importantly they make the proponents feel good.  Except they never are great and miraculously it is always other people who end up paying for the consequences.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 6:49:19 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Kantok,
Taxes are always just taxes. The problem lies in the fact that "tax more and throw money at the problem" is ALWAYS the solution. Always, always, ALWAYS.  And if you happen to think that it isn't always the solution the you are evil or cruel or greedy or some other nonsense argument. 

Nope.  I think that a HELL of a lot of progressives want to cut spending to stuff like defense and use that money elsewhere.  Progressives also generally want to do things like get rid of fossil fuel subsidies in favor of subsidies on renewables.

So you are just demonstrably wrong.  Progressives consistently and repeatedly propose solutions other than higher taxes.

Quoting Kantok,
Except they never are great and miraculously it is always other people who end up paying for the consequences.

Eh, a lot of progressive changes have been overwhelming successful.

I mean, lets look at the monster one: socialized medicine.  Go out there and find a single recent poll that shows that people in a country with socialized medicine want to switch back to a less progressive medical system.  I mean, the Canadian polls that I saw had a 90%+ preference for their system of the US's.

Or, let's see a politician try and run for president on a platform of abolishing Medicare.  I bet that would go over well.

I'm certainly not saying that all progressive ideas are good ideas, but it is pretty easy to demonstrate in hindsight that a lot of the progressive changes of the past have been largely successful.  Or, you can look at the more progressive European countries, many of which have people who earn more on average, work substantially less on average, and have higher happiness measures on average (that would be most of northern Europe, which is quite progressive).  A lot of that stuff does end up working.  Not all of it by any means (some of the more liberal European stuff is pretty crazy IMO), but some of it anyway.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 7:48:19 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,



That's a pretty easy answer:

Money is exchanged for goods and services. That's what my taxes should be doing for me and my family.  If my taxes are being given to someone else that is not providing me with a good or service then I object to that.

That sounds reasonable in theory, but I don't how that could be applied in practice on a national scale, and it would be an administrative nightmare to allocate taxes on a person by person basis. 

Also, the direct fee for services approach has some flaws. For example, I heard of a town that required residence to pay an optional fee for fire protection. One day a house caught fire, but the homeowner had opted out, so the fire dept didn't come. His neighbor did pay the fee, so when the fire spread to his house the fire dept came. Even though he paid the fee, he was impacted by his neighbor's decision to opt out.

And what about roads. If you pay for the service but some of your neighbors opt out, what is the DPW going to do? Only pave in front of the houses that paid for the road? That's just not practical. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 7:54:21 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

and now back to the feature presentation...

"A Convenient Lack of Reliable Data" 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 8:11:56 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

There are no subsidies on fossil fuels, there are only extra taxes over what other industries and products have.  Repeating that nonsense wont make it true.

 

Next time you look into health care satisfaction, check to see if they've done separate polling of people with serious medical problems.  For some reason, it's never ceases to amaze liberals that healthy people are happy with their socialized medicine regardless of how bad it is.  I can't imagine any of the people waiting several months for a quadruple bypass are happy.  Oh wait, they all die!

 

I'm perfectly happy with the insurance I don't even have, I haven't even had a doctors visit in 8 years.

 

Eh, a lot of progressive changes have been overwhelming successful.

 

When you give people free shit, obviously it's going to be popular with the people getting free shit.  Why would you be surprised that grandma likes not having to pay for her doctor visits?

 

The subject of far more relevance is what has happened to medical costs and fiscal budgets as a result of this program.  The elderly are massively over-medicated by doctors working their practice like a revolving door, seeing them frequently with no need but not long enough to actually know how their patient is doing.  Medicare drains about as much from the federal budget as social security does, and all so the quality of care provided by most doctors can be substandard.

 

Of my four grandparents, two have been killed before their time by incompetent doctors.  One grandmother, in the middle of a fight with lung cancer, had her jaw broken by an incompetent VA surgeon.  One grandfather was literally poisoned by the local hospital when his lymphoma came back, and they made him so sick that he aspirated and became septic.  My other grandfather is only alive because his relatives harassed him until he went to someone that wasn't a quack instead of seeing the fucking retards at the VA again.  They've tried to kill him multiple times and he keeps going back.  Our rural hospitals are death traps, the VA hospitals are death traps, most of the doctors that accept medicaid are dangerously incompetent.

 

It's not a pretty picture we're drawing here.  Government run health care is destroying what used to be the best medical care in the world.  You only get good care in large cities now, where the populations are young enough that the privately insured pay enough extra to fund the losses they have from the elderly and poor.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 8:35:28 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 589That's a pretty easy answer:

Money is exchanged for goods and services. That's what my taxes should be doing for me and my family.  If my taxes are being given to someone else that is not providing me with a good or service then I object to that.

You are welcome to believe that, but you will probably have to move to another country.  And, as far as I'm aware of, none of those other countries will be first world countries.

The US's Constitution gives the government the power to tax, and it expressly tells the government to provide for the welfare of the people, so you have serious objections to the document which defines our government.

Do you have to act like that?

Thank you for giving me your gracious permission to have my opinion. 

Also, if you think that "promote the general welfare" means give money to other people "welfare" in the modern sense then you need to do some really basic research on constitutional history.  You keep making these quips about the constitution when it's pretty clear you know very little about it.  Use Google. It's your friend.  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 8:39:25 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Quoting Borg999,


Quoting Frogboy, reply 589


That's a pretty easy answer:

Money is exchanged for goods and services. That's what my taxes should be doing for me and my family.  If my taxes are being given to someone else that is not providing me with a good or service then I object to that.

That sounds reasonable in theory, but I don't how that could be applied in practice on a national scale, and it would be an administrative nightmare to allocate taxes on a person by person basis. 

What are you talking about? Until the 1930s, the country worked as originally intended via enumerated powers.  Tax dollars weren't given to someone else simply because they had a pulse. Tax dollars were spent on things explicitly enumerated by the constitution.  

It's not that complicated to make the distinction between whether money is going for a service or whether money is just being redistributed.

Paying for police or roads or schools or the fire department are services that I might theoretically use or need.  Paying for your car, however, is not.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 8:58:12 PM from Little Tiny Frogs Forums Little Tiny Frogs Forums

Since some people seem to be confused as to what the federal government is legally allowed to do here is a list:

  1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  2. To borrow on the credit of the United States;
  3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  4. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
  8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
  14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
In addition, 27 amendments were added to the constitution to further clarify any remaining question on what the federal government is allowed to do. They are:
  1. The federal government may not pass laws limiting your speech or establish an official religion.
  2. The federal government may not prevent you from buying a gun.
  3. The "" may not quarter troops in your house.
  4. The "" may may not search and seize things on a whim but only through search warrants based on probably cause.
  5. The "" may  not force you to incriminate yourself.
  6. The people have a right to a trial by jury.
  7. The people also can demand a jury in civil cases.
  8. No cruel or unnsual punishment allowed.
  9. Restates, for future progressives, that the federal government can only perform the ENUMERATED rights (we had a whole amendment dedicated to this and it still gets forgotten)
  10. Restates, for future progressives, again, seriously, NO KIDDING, that the federal government only has those 16 previously enumerated rights and everything else is left to the states. Clear enough? 2 of the 10 bill of rights designed to make sure no future progressive will think that "promote the general welfare" suddenly is a cart blanche new power. Only those 16 powers.
  11. States are immune from suits from foreigners.
  12. The Prez and Vice President are no longer the 1st and 2nd place finishers in elections.
  13. Slavery is now illegal.
  14. Equal protection of the law and everyone is gauranteed due process.
  15. All men can vote, regardless of color.
  16. The government can now collect money via an income tax.
  17. Senators are now elected by popular vote.
  18. Alcohol is now illegal. 
  19. Women can now vote too.
  20. Changes the date when congress and the president come into office.
  21. Just kidding on the booze, alcohol is legal again.
  22. You can only serve two terms as President.
  23. Washington DC gets to have a vote in presidential elections.
  24. You can't charge people to vote (i.e. no poll taxes).
  25. Clarifies succession for the presidency.
  26. 18 year olds can now vote.
  27. Salary increases for congress dont' go into affect until after the next election

See? Is this really that complicated? The federal government has 16 things it is allowed to do. But for future dumb people, the bill of rights has 2 amendments to emphasize that yes, and truly, only those 16 things are allowed.

Only 1 amendment has given the federal government more power and that's the 16th amendment.  Everything else is about reducing government power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 9:31:43 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Krazikarl,

Nope.  I think that a HELL of a lot of progressives want to cut spending to stuff like defense and use that money elsewhere.  Progressives also generally want to do things like get rid of fossil fuel subsidies in favor of subsidies on renewables.

So you are just demonstrably wrong.  Progressives consistently and repeatedly propose solutions other than higher taxes.

Just because you want to use the words "demonstrably wrong" doesn't make it true.  Every progressive big idea is propped up by new taxes.  Sure, Joe Blow Progressive might want to take money from the military to fund rainbow unicorn parks, but no serious politician does.  

Quoting Krazikarl,

Eh, a lot of progressive changes have been overwhelming successful.

I mean, lets look at the monster one: socialized medicine.  Go out there and find a single recent poll that shows that people in a country with socialized medicine want to switch back to a less progressive medical system.  I mean, the Canadian polls that I saw had a 90%+ preference for their system of the US's.

Or, let's see a politician try and run for president on a platform of abolishing Medicare.  I bet that would go over well.

Popular =/= successful.  Giving away shit paid for by OPM is always popular.  Sure, Canadian healthcare prefers theirs to ours, except whenever they need to see specialists.  Same thing with Europe.  You need to see a specialist?  Need to get care in a hurry?  They come here and pay for it.  

And Medicare, combined with awful malpractice laws, are THE reasons we have a shortage of doctors in this country.  It's the reason GPs are all but disappearing.  Being a GP isn't worth the years of training anymore.  

Quoting Krazikarl,

I'm certainly not saying that all progressive ideas are good ideas, but it is pretty easy to demonstrate in hindsight that a lot of the progressive changes of the past have been largely successful.  Or, you can look at the more progressive European countries, many of which have people who earn more on average, work substantially less on average, and have higher happiness measures on average (that would be most of northern Europe, which is quite progressive).  A lot of that stuff does end up working.  Not all of it by any means (some of the more liberal European stuff is pretty crazy IMO), but some of it anyway.

As for the "many of which earn more" nonsense, a 30 second Google search revealed a whole host of sources that show you're wrong.  

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

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

To bring this back around to the topic of the thread, magic bullet solutions are inherently bad because they're always complex and always expensive and they're never as effective as promised.  Why is this relevant to AGW?

Because AGW, even if it's real and fixable, dwarfs all of these in terms of complexity, scope, scale and cost.  It's a bureaucrats wet dream.  You have power to essentially regulate anything you want as long as some other bureaucrats model says it may be a contributor to AGW.  Unelected authority gone wild. Yay.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
October 10, 2013 9:33:08 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

 

Redistributed money even for services one might never personally use isn't necessarily a bad thing (depends on what of course).

In Canada for instance we are all about the redistribution of monies (taxes).  While that same focus on redistribution certainly doesn't allow for excellence in any one category it does however ensure that (in general) our population isn't going hungry, is well-educated and reasonably healthy.  These days (in hard economic times) it is more evident than ever that those 3 things are what help a nation through the tough times.  I for one am glad I live in a nation leaning towards 'collectivism' as opposed to individualism.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #101114  walnut1   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000297   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+