Slashdot Mirror
Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low (apnews.com)
President Donald Trump on Monday rejected a central conclusion of a dire report on the economic costs of climate change released by his own administration. Associated Press reports: But economists said the National Climate Assessment's warning of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global warming costs is pretty much on the money. Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, they said. Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The climate report, quietly unveiled Friday, warned that natural disasters are worsening in the United States because of global warming. It said warming-charged extremes "have already become more frequent, intense, widespread or of long duration." The report noted the last few years have smashed U.S. records for damaging weather, costing nearly $400 billion since 2015.
"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."
"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."
Sold to the Americans by entrepreneurial British, Spanish and French, in exchange for the products of cheap southern labor.
At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.
- This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
Not a new low for that lifetime fraud and recent traitor Drumpf
Sold to the Americans by entrepreneurial British, Spanish and French, in exchange for the products of cheap southern labor.
Sold by entrepreneurial Africans to the British, Spanish and French, in exchange for European industrial products, triangular trade. Oh and there were also American slave traders, lots of them. Any particular reason why you left them out of your list?
And nobody is the least bit surprised by this.
Captch: coffee. Or is that really covfefe?
Please phone in sick to work tomorrow. Some of you are all right.
In order to avoid looking foolish, it would be a good idea to familiarize oneself with the work of Peter Hadfield, aka Potholer54. He knocks down the common myths and misconceptions on both sides of the issue, often with good humor, and always with peer-reviewed science. Well worth the time.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage,
The broken window sector of the economy is going to be Yuge! Remember: lost wages means lower unemployment figures! /s
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
It's because he knows the economy is a scam and a silly indicator for the "rich" to keep score.
Make my ass great again.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
As much of a dick Trump is you have to separate government from country, you can't really lay that one on him.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Oh look. Another Trumptard using "Global Warming" because Climate Change doesn't fit his or her narrative.
Hotter Summers and Colder Winters are entirely within the description of Climate Change
which is why there's now a idiot openly skeptical of their claims.
FTFY.
if you claim it's "settled", it isn't science.
I think what's settled is that with Climate Change you have greater swings: higher highs and lower lows.
But please be our guest and buy all the beachfront property you want in low lying areas like Florida. And stay in your home when the hurricanes come. You haven't by any chance had children yet have you? I will applaud when Darwinism takes it natural course.
Lots of hurricanes recently, tho. Plus forest fires. Plus heatwaves around the world.
So it looks like the scientists are right, while dipshits on the Internet are wrong. Again.
Republican idiot is republican idiot is ... waiting for 2019 to watch the Trump insane asylum get ... TRUMPED!
It's more like Trump having Trumpified the Republican party. He commands the fanatical loyalty of a portion of the party that is sufficiently large for the Republican establishment having to suck up to him and appease his followers because they need that portion of the electorate to win elections. In order to win Trump's support they have to follow him in a headlong charge towards the right wing nationalist fringe and cater to his narcissistic bullshit. The last few Republicans that looked moderate because the rest of the party had moved so far to the right have now retired or been primaried and in those cases where they were replaced by Republicans in the recent elections those Republicans are universally hard core Trumkins. So just face it, there is no Republican party anymore. There are two US political parties, the 'Democrats' and the 'Cult of Trump'. I can only imagine how frustrating all of this is to Mitch McConnell. Just when he thought he had secured congressional majorities for the Republicans on the back of the minority vote using gerrymandering, voter suppression, disenfranchisement and intimidation, along comes Trump and basically hijacks the party. I bet it is still nothing compared to how galling it is for old Mitch to have to make an ass of himself in public by kissing Trump's posterior and heaping sycophantic praise on Trump as if he is some oriental god-emperor.
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich). He has no problem kissing Trump's ass, doing him a blowjob or worse.
If we wait long enough we will find out for sure if the planet is heating up, will we not? Why argue? Just watch
So, yeah, not accurate to call it assassinate, call it, in a trumpian way, draining the swamp. As the other poster pointed out, that so-called president of yours already demanded assassination of the president if he didn't win.
Moreover, he's a fake president. He lost. Corruption by the Republican party gave him the seat. So he's not even the president.
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich). He has no problem kissing Trump's ass, doing him a blowjob or worse.
Yes, but on a purely personal level McConnell deeply despises Trump, you can tell when he talks about the guy, no matter how hard he tries to hide it it always shines through. Kowtowing to Trump like the Jade Emperor of China and heaping ridiculous praise on Trump is clearly deeply galling to old Mitch. He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse. Mitch, of course, has a servant who cleans his toilets for him, but making an ass of himself by kowtowing to Trump and flattering him in public is the one job Mitch can't outsource.
This is what we'd have called "loser denial".
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
As much of a dick Trump is you have to separate government from country, you can't really lay that one on him.
True, that one can't be laid on Trump ... and for the OP: let's not forget that for all it's mistakes, this is also the government that set the slaves free.
So, the so-called devastating impact of climate change means it will cost a few hundred billion dollars over the next 80 years? This sounds like it isnâ(TM)t much of a problem then. I would say this is great news.
All of you, If you see him, turn away, ignore him, shun him into non existence.
Do the same for all of his supporters.
And that bullshit "More hurricanes is because of global warming! And so is the ten years WITHOUT a hurricane!
What 10 years without a hurricane. Just because they didn't hit the CONUS doesn't mean there weren't any hurricanes.
Warm winters? Global warming!
Cold winters? That's global warming too!
You suffer from short term thinking. If you want to understand global warming/climate change you need to look at averages over at least 20 year periods and probably a bit longer. What happens in any one or two year period is just natural variability. The noise of natural variability is great enough to overcome the signal of global warming on any short term basis.
Is anyone surprized that this bafoon says he doesn't believe in global warming!!!
He's senile.
This is what happens when you elect old people for such an important position, you get senile old folks who think they have the country's "best interest" at heart... but with their ideas from 50 years ago of what is "best".
Trump's infallibility: he knows better than his experts, because he is Trump.
Do we really have to accept this?
It used to be the case for the Pope, who also had infallibility, but we move beyond that some times ago.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6384457/Lack-sunspots-bring-Space-Age-record-cold-weather-NASA-scientist-warns.html
Could any one validate the content?
Don't worry, we're energetically giving fascists free air time and electing them as fast as we can to catch up with you guys. The extremist fundamentalism thing though, you've got to admit, European efforts are pretty meh compared to your mega-churches.
Yes, that was bad. If they had not the US would not be so infested with black gangs.
When politics and science are mixed together, the truth becomes unknown. So I stand as a skeptic, and if Trump is on my side, all the better.
Over 85% of slave traders were Muslim.
Only 1.2% of Americans owned slaves at the height of the slave industry in the Americas.
I don't believe anything he says either, so... yeah. God, I can't WAIT for America to have a real president again.
Why are people still surprised by new lows? He just keeps getting lower. Never heard anything else come out of his mouth.
"Climate not weather!" you snivel, except every time there's a hurricane, "look what you did!!!" you drone.
You want to never forgive...a country...for something it did before you were born ?
I'd pretty much stick to the UN climate report. It runs a bunch of scenarios, and seems to be a bit on the conservative side.
False equivalence arguments are a common deception strategy. It lets someone put out a false extreme as if it carries equal weight to the reasoned (usually dull middle of the road) explanation. Then the false equivalence compares them both as if they were equally valid, and pretends to be the measured middle ground. It isn't.
This "false extreme" is the Fox News game. Take children from their parents at the border, becomes "children saved from human traffickers pretending to be their parents". Wanting healthcare from children and old people become "socialist healthcare to overload hospitals and make people die"..... Kashoggi, the journalist the Saudi Prince tortured live on WhatsApp becomes an "ISIS terrorist" that the Saudi's saved USA from.
Can you really expect someone who lost money owning a casino to have anything worth while to contribute?
Hurricanes happen. Climate models predict that injecting more energy (temperature) into the system results in bigger and more frequent hurricanes that can cause more damage.
But you know, deniers will stick their fingers in their ears no matter what. If you refuse all evidence unless it fits your theory, then no evidence will ever be good enough.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
A trade which still exists today in the Middle East:
https://www.theguardian.com/gl...
Since it is a Republican that Says that.
Well they have done that all by there selfs, They Want you to pick a Siide "THERE SIDE" if you don't then The Sky is FALLING Faster just listen to them they would believe anything they are Told As Long as it Fits there Agenda, And thats the Rub Most of the People Yelling the Most are the Ones invested in Alternative Energy they seem to think that Everyone will Drink the Koolaid and make them all RICH.
I Have been around a Long time the Weather don't seem any different than Years Ago when most of the Ones Crying about it where not even around Yet Check the Data yourself, More than 50 Years ago the Weather was Like it is Now but that Would Break there Model to must so they Seem to ignore what doon't FIT.
Climate models predict that injecting more energy (temperature) into the system results in bigger and more frequent hurricanes that can cause more damage.
Where are the actual measurements that haven't been edited or interpreted that support this. I'm asking for the actual data, not conclusive studies of the data.
And guess what? Skepticism is the foundation of actual science - if you claim it's "settled", it isn't science.
Science is about looking at the facts - settled doesn't mean consensus. Some people still belive the earth is flat - and I hope we can agree that that matter is settled.
https://twitter.com/PeterGleic...
are giving the Fossil Fuel industries another couple of decades in which to make profits. Eventually Climate Change will impact their profits but by that time the industry will have branch out into other areas.
No, the black africans were enslaved by other black africans and then sold to muslims, who sold them to portuguese slavers, who brought them to the Americas and sold them there.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And then there was a civil war and they were freed. You're welcome.
To be fair the only reason Trump wasn't a slave trader is because he hadn't been born yet.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
...and although he never talked to his uncle about climate change, he knows science (passed down through genetics). He also has a good gut instinct about this. And if he was ever wrong, he'll "just figure it out."
Sounds good to me.
That has to be the most clueless post I've ever seen someone post here and actually post it non-AC. Please do your part to Make America Great Again and kill yourself.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Only 1.2% of Americans owned slaves at the height of the slave industry in the Americas.
Oddly, your numbers are of Americans, which would even include those not in states where Slavery was allowed. But sure, most people in the South didn't own slaves. And yet hundreds of thousands leapt to the defense of the practice to hold over 4 million in bondage.
But since he's YOUR "buffoon" "moron" "racist" "idiot" "retard" "orange" "old" "misogynist" "small hands" "fake hair" "embarrassment" etc..." YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT. As long as he sticks it hard to people you hate, you don't care what shit he does.
A fucking GREAT argument against someone like drumpf not being your lead is he's a bufoon, none of the rest need matter. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE 100% ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
Well "old" isn't a good reason for someone not to be a leader, but you pulled THAT one out your ass, don't remember anyone complaining about his age, just his rampant dementia. Bernie, Hillary and so on are all old too.
The only reason he isn't a slave trader now is that he's not a good enough businessman to get away with it
Don't be a moron. The 'climate is not weather' -argument is a counter-argument to the specific anti-scientific claim of 'the climate cannot be warming because it's now extremely cold outside'. That's an irrational and a bullshit claim.
However, as a result of the global climate warming (and hence there being more and more energy in the atmosphere) extreme weather phenomenon are predicted to increases on all sides: more storms, more heatwaves, more droughts etc. In certain geogphraphic regions even the winters will get heavier because increased rainfall means more snow.
Increased hurricanes are a predicted consequence of a warming climate that we're now witnessing. So yes indeed, more and more intensive hurricanes and storms and so on are tied to a warming climate, it's just that idiots like you who do not understand the first thing about climate science see this mentioned and like children parrot the line: 'BUT YOU SAID CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER' as if the whole reason climate change is a global problem would not be that it makes weather phenomenon more extreme across the board.
So once again my dear baffoon, repeat after me: the fact that the weather can at times be extremely cold and there can be blizzards is not evidence that the climate as a whole is not warming. The fact that we can actually measure temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the atmosphere and we can observe the changes in weather patterns those changes cause is undeniable evidence that it is warming.
How in the fuck there are people over the age of 12 who fail to get this distinction is beyond me.
Out of curiosity, do you think the National Climate Assessment is almost certainly bollocks, because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, or because you think that the impacts of the current warming are almost certainly wrong for some other reason?
Jesus fucking wept. As though lagging indicators weren't really fucking basic economics.
Why should he be frustrated? He's the one who facilitated the Trumpification of the Republican party. He didn't have to, he could've stopped it instead, although at the cost of the overall power of the right. He's the Trump era's Paul von Hindenburg.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma"
Lines like this are why many people roll their eyes at climate alarmists. We are constantly told that weather does not equal climate - yet climate alarmists point to singular short-term events as proof of their predictions.
Would these hurricanes have occurred if human activity did not emit any carbon at all? We'll never know.
What we do know is that government run flood insurance plans place the burden of irresponsible costal development on everyone. NJ got blasted by Sandy and what did we do? We paid almost everyone to rebuild right where the losses occurred. Often times, the homes that were rebuilt were far bigger than the structures that were damaged.
The astronomical dollar amounts being lost in these hurricanes is less a function of climate change and more a function of government encouraging irresponsible development.
This isn't about slavery or the 2nd amendment. It's about climate "science". And why would anybody believe these goofs? We have been told for 30 years that there were only 10 years left to "save the planet". The name has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so they could expand the theory to fit the fact that warming wasn't happening.
Further, the same people who can't get the temperatures right two days ahead of time claim to know what's going to happen in 20 or 50 years. And finally, there has been finding after finding that there have been math errors, selective evidence gathering, and outright fraud by climate "scientists". Why would anybody believe this stuff?
Climate science is the most convoluted topic, the fact that manipulation and corruption has factually occurred to skew past results makes it very difficult to take the topic seriously at all.
Seems more like a religious system with their carbon credits and other faith based arguments
Don't ruin the environment. Ok I'm on board. But this doom and gloom needs some work
If we're going to be pedantic, we could consider that their descendants were enslaved locally upon birth in most cases.
The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
The tax cuts reduced revenue. Deficits have doubled.
There was an economic benefit due to the fiscal stimulus- but it didn't cause tax receipts to rise by so much that the tax cuts paid for themselves. It never does.
"Voodoo economics" George Bush Snr called it. We are not at the top of the Laffer curve. We are never at the top of the Laffer curve. Tax cuts are a stimulus the economy didn't need and when a recession comes (and it will) the increased defecits will reduce the ability of the government then in power to enact a fiscal stimulus package when it is actually needed.
With unemployment so low there was no need for the tax cuts.
Also the benefits went to the rich. I know it, you know know it everyone knows it.
Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970
The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.
I don't think the Republican party has moved if by that you mean that Republicans have changed their beliefs. I think the Party faithful have remained where they've been since Reagan. Nixon had his Southern strategy of picking off Wallace supporters and then the South moved to the Republican camp because Democrats were telling them things they did not want to hear. That started the Evangelicals to renounce the Democrat party. Reagan cashed in on the Evangelical vote and the Southern vote. George Bush extended that a bit, and also produced the Willie Horton ads. Bush Jr. was little different but promised the Evangelicals more. Trump merely caused normal people to quit the Republican party so now it is the party of the leftovers.
The harm at the global political stage and the harm to the environment will echo for decades. The fact that you are yet unable to recognize this with all indications that this harm to our country is being orchestrated by external agents, and are therefore going to continue making these bad decisions.
There are reasonable discussion to have about how to structure wealth distribution in our country and economy (and make no mistake, the "laissez faire" you probably espouse is absolutely one form, seeing how you expect police and courts to enforce property ownership, debt repayments, and contracts). But, a Trump-led right is not viable.
He may be the best guy in the world, but if he'd just go and shut the fuck up already he'd be so much better.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
You are mentally ill. Seek help.
Trump merely caused normal people to quit the Republican party so now it is the party of the leftovers.
Funny, and here I thought it was the democrats that are on the #walkaway train.
Facts. You can say "fuck!" now.
"His name was James Damore."
Spot on. The fact that the comment you are replying to is modded +5 Insightful is frankly amazing, in the most literal sense, and not in a good way
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Sorry but this is absolute horseshit. You're presenting this as an obvious fact but there's absolutely no evidence that these tax changes had any positive impact on what you're claiming. I had some more comments typed up to your other points, but come on dude.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
1) The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.
2) Slavery in the American colonies became legal nearly 100 years before any of the "founding fathers" were born. They attempted to outlaw slavery in the colonies but the British Crown Colonial Courts would not allow them to enact anti-slavery laws as British industry was profiting from both the slave trade and the cheap cotton produced.
3) The "3/5ths' Compromise" was a way to limit the number of Representatives Southern slave States could have in Congress thus reducing their ability to overrule Abolitionists.
4) Most of the "founding fathers" abhorred slavery. Thomas Jefferson never bought nor sold a single slave. He ended up inheriting a group of slaves from his in-laws. He could not set them free as it was a hanging offense under British colonial law to free black slaves so he kept them together to not break up families and treated them as well as possible under the laws of the day.
5) The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
6) The US government and military were not racially segregated prior to President Woodrow Wilson(D) who ordered segregation to be implemented.
7) There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs? Where are the proposals for Irish-American slavery Reparations?
That is your red pill for today. You're welcome.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.
It means they have 50 years less guilt.
Regardless though, any government that DIDN'T outlaw it and actively try to prevent it was very guilty. Sadly, slavery has been the norm in history not the exception. It's illegal now, but there are still a large number of slaves kept TODAY in a couple of African countries. The is also sexual slavery, which although not exactly the same thing is just as bad, and that is a world-wide problem.
The Arabic empires all had slaves for hundreds of years. Germanic and Nordic people all had slaves pre Christendom. All the classical empires had slaves. Without going back to pre-history, there probably has not been a single day in all human history where one nation or another hasn't had large numbers of slaves.
Many humans are really quite crappy people and will enslave, or take advantage of other people who are weaker than them. Human history is full of one group of people being horrifically nasty to another group. We're a horrible species in many ways when you think about it.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So you're are saying the Republican establishment is sucking up to Trump in order to maintain power at the expense of the country, and often at the expense of the Constitution.
If this is a defense of a party I'm not seeing it.
No fault of his own
The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months.
The unemployment numbers are a blatant lie based on the fact that people who collect unemployment insurance too long and are no longer eligible to collect it are not counted. The actual unemployment rate is somewhere between the inverse of the labor participation rate, and the U-6 unemployment rate.
The GDP growth is irrelevant to the average American, and thus irrelevant to the economic health of the country, because inflation-adjusted wages remain flat (or, in fact, decline as they have for decades) as profits increase.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do
And yet, they still pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes, which proves just how fucked over the tax code is. The people with the most money are deriving the most benefit from the system, and they obviously should pay the most to maintain it because the alternative is torches, pitchforks, and guillotines.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"leapt to the defense"
You spelled conscription wrong.
I believe in climate change and most of the report BIG problems with this posting here
1) The person identified as the poster "msmash" is a first timer with no previous Slashdot record (read the heading with her name versus the typical heading) and no profile.
2) Hate Trump as much as you want, but the Slashdot/AP a headline misrepresents what Trump. said. The Slashdot headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low". AP headline: "Trump: ‘I don’t believe’ government climate report finding. Notice where the quotation marks are. "I don't believe" are in quotes but the rest of the headline isn't. I doubt this bit of misleading headline was an accident by the very smart, competent AP editors. And according to the AP article what did Trump actually say? At https://apnews.com/c1dfca3088b... after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,” Trump said, adding that if “every other place on Earth is dirty, that’s not so good.” So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.
And he has good reason to- the report speculates a "worse case" sometime in the future (no date provided) of a an 8.5 degree temperature rise and further speculates on "outdoor labor unable to work because of climate change" to come up with the 10% loss figure. Even the AP article reviewers have a problem with this approach: "Yohe said it was unfortunate that some media jumped on that 10 percent number because that was a rare case of hyperbole in the report. “The 10 percent is not implausible as a possible future for 2100,” Yohe said. “It’s just not terribly likely.” Kopp, on the other hand, said the 10 percent figure seems believable. “This is probably a best estimate,” Kopp said. “It could be larger. It could be smaller.”. This is an example of the permanent government of DC civil servants (who are sometimes right, sometimes not) piling up a rickety pyramid of assumptions-based-on-assuptions, to come up with a scary hypothesis for 80+ years in the future and and then slapping an imagined, highly speculative "cost" on it This sort of nonsense/propaganda is what leads many reasonable people to think the whole Climate Change" thing is a hoax, which it is not.
3) About the comments. At 7:00 am CST we had five up for a postings on slavery and other off-topic comments. This to me suggests that some bots have crept into the "like" system and maybe the original poster may not be real at all. Not an accusation exactly but no profile and no previous Slashdot comments or posting... a bit suspicious.
Readers, just be aware that all sides are now acting like the Russians and you as a reader have to be apply a very critical eye to the stuff you are being fed.
Tax cut reduced my taxes by about $3k a year, the first significant tax cut in my lifetime.
Seeing as the DNC is calling me a bigot and racist and greedy every time they get in front of a camera, including saying I don't deserve any tax cut, fuck them. Never voting DNC again for the rest of my life. I suspect they are upset because blacks are supporting Trump in large numbers and the DNC is unhappy they "don't know their place" anymore. DNC supported slavery, opposed civil rights act, opposed blacks voting, and now oppose blacks getting jobs. Its a long trend of the party that puts KKK leaders up for Senate for 6 decades that they continue their oppression of minorities.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.
Then you realize that the top few percent have vastly more wealth than not just the poor, but the entirety of the population below them. Then you realize that the rich are not being stolen from, but being taxed which is how the government pays for services rendered, after all, public workers can't be expected to serve for free, though contrary to say, Trump's beliefs, they aren't paid seven figure salaries. Then when you look at all the other labor done in this country, you wonder why they aren't being paid so well.
Then you can start asking what's fair.
Of course, you would also have to admit that unemployment was already dropping, the economy was growing, and you wonder if these tax cuts did anything. Except increase the deficit, despite all the handwaving you want to do over revenue.
Why does not matter. It is or is not
He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse.
It doesn't really make any difference what he thinks in private, he is a public servant and his public actions - unequivocal support of Trump - speak for themselves. In supporting Trump he shares responsibility for undermining norms and causing severe damage to US reputation and international standing.
If there was a crime "Moral negligence causing decline of USA", then Mitch McConnell would be guilty as a co-conspirator.
Yet because of corruption trump got most states. NOT most people.
Its factual... president moron doesn't believe anything that is factual. Thats why he's there, he was elected by people who dont believe in facts to protect them from facts.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, objective reality is actually a thing. Denying the existence of something doesnt make it magically stop existing.
Although I understand your explanation, all of this is no excuse for what's happening. First the world tried to act as if nothing really changed, then they looked back in awe and now they're actually drawing conclusions. But depending on how long this will go on, it will eventually end in tears.
All who sit there in both the Senate and the House have sworn to hold up the Constitution and its ammendments. You've had TWO YEARS to come up with articles of impeachment, but nobody did so. Even without the results of the Mueller investigation, there are so many impeachable offenses, it's hard to make a comprehensive list of them. If any president before him had only dared to act like he does, almost every single day, the impeachment would've been a done deal three times over already.
What we see here is fascism in the making, nothing more, nothing less. You wanted to show the finger to the proverbial 1%? How does it feel now you actually elected them to run the government for you?* The world can only hope the Democrats now take their FULL responsibility and rid the world from this madness.
Then, I guess, it's time to invest a little more money into your schools, because that's simply one of the primary reasons this whole shit show was actually allowed to happen. After that, you can take up the pitchforks and demand the government to take measures, the crazy rich flow some substantial part of their accumulated wealth back into the system...
* Actually, ironically, that part somewhat backfired, after their supposed puppet-leader got out of control and started to do all the wacky things he bragged about.
Of course the cost of storm damage will rise. This will happen with Global Cooling (remember that alarm from the 1970s?) as well. This is the natural, expected effect of our rapidly debased currency. A dollar today has the buying power of 3 cents in 1915. Just imagine the high price of everything a mere 50 years from now. How about getting the politicians to work on _that_ economic issue.
/Making America Great Again/s/Great/A Laughing Stock/g
So literally every possible observation confirms global warming. Science!
Absolute proof of Slashdot.Org liberal biased.
What you get from A Two Party System.
As dictated by Game Theory!
Captcha: extort
Please don't ever vote ever again.
it's not good for a president. for the good rule is president should believe on government and his team. thanks, sir nice article https://www.technozuzu.com/goo... GOOGLE reCAPTCHA v3 THAT STOP BOTS WITHOUT USER INTERACTION
We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.
The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile
"the sky is falling so do as I say" or "the sky is not falling so guard your liberty jealously" I'll pick the latter every single time. Good on Trump for expressing skepticism of the AGW-government-academic-industrial complex.
voted for him with this kind of vitriol. Everyone is entitled to an opinion including the President of the United States. If you don't like it then move on, but threatening the life of a POTUS I believe may be one of those things that is not exactly covered by free speech. You may be getting a knock on your door from the Secret Service, FBI or another agency. That kind of attention is not good, not good at all.
That being said, hurricanes happen. What most people don't realize is that the reason they are costing more is people are moving into hurricane prone areas in droves, backing up to forests and timber lands in droves (Fires) and generally not paying attention to the disasters that might befall them.
C02 causes both cooling and warming (cooling in the upper atmosphere and warming in the lower), is benign and not a pollutant. It currently is around 400ppm (that is the same as 4 parts in 10,000. That means if you take 10,000 dollar bills, 4 dollars would be the equivalent in co2. We have .04% of our atmosphere as co2. .04 is not a lot. The true damage will be in lost rights and lost freedom when the "government" takes away freedoms and starts fining and arresting people for releasing C02 (AKA respiration) and turns this country into a police state because we went from .028% co2 to .040% c02. in 100 years.
Also while their are side effects to increased CO2 levels not all of them are bad. Regardless of whether AGW, Climate change or the like are happening (and i'm sure to some extent they are for many reasons) it makes no sense to get violent or reckless trying to solve what may not be that big of a problem to begin with.
Oh and based on all the hate the President is getting I am voting for him in 2020, because if he is pissing everyone off he must be doing something right. I fear a politician everyone likes.
So what you are saying is that the republican establishment is happy to sacrifice the country and wipe their asses with the constitution in order to maintain power.
If that was a defense of the republican party I'm not seeing it.
Perhaps the Orange idiot should shut up for a day so we would not get these jokes on him.
Let's be honest here, neither party has seriously ever eyed up the national debt or deficit. Let's stop acting like it's a real point of contention in this duopoly. It's never going to be addressed properly until both the Dems and Reps are things of the past. They both love that you swing on this point but it's nothing more than political circuses to them.
That's how Obama and Clinton "lowered the deficit". Obama's was a one time windfall with a republican legislature, and Clinton's was just straight up lying.
" The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson."
Not quite correct. He was not the first slave owner in the US but he was one of the first people in Virginia to have his right to own a slave legally recognised. Snopes and Wikipedia seem to be on the same page with this explanation.
"Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court. A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
This says it all:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtA8r7AXcAEDucV.jpg
Trump is claiming credit for all the stuff that Obama put into place to correct the mess Bush left behind, economic changes take a few years to happen.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
How can you teach your kids to tell the truth when the President of the one of the most powerful countries in the world lies.
Funny, and here I thought it was the democrats that are on the #walkaway train.
Unsurprisingly, like many GOP talking points, this one was projection, too. Pew and Gallup agree that D party id has remained relatively flat, while R party id dipped in 2017, although the Gallup numbers that go into 2018 suggest that R party id has recovered in recent months.
Yet here we are
Who let this man become president?
Look up where the name 'slave' comes from.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Obama entered office with a country 8 trillion in debt. He left a country 20 trillion in debt.
If you're going to attempt to bash the current administration, try not to be so dismissive of the damage the last one caused.
You want the actual Data ?!?
You Can Not Handle The Actual Data !
captcha : bookworm
People who hate America sure do hate President Trump.
There is no economic boom dumbshit. The defecit has more than doubled under Trump and he is just getting started destroying the economy. It will take a decade to recover from the damage he has already caused. We may *never* recover our reputation with the world.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The headline itself "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low" is why people are screaming fake news.
It's a factual headline wrapped in commentary.
A Factual headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding"
The reporter's commentary: "in a New Low"
This is exactly why Trump was elected by middle America. News agencies on the coasts forcing their viewpoints into the news and pushing people away from media into conservative think-holes or conspiracy theory garbage. Wake up already and do your jobs - report news. Not your feelings.
(Also: this post is not how I feel - it's the fact of the matter.)
New paper in Nature that says there is no climate trend to hurricane damage. Which is opposite of what the Obama-started report states.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nature magazine says otherwise for a new peer-reviewed paper.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.
It means they have 50 years less guilt.
.
And there are some additions to that list of dubious honor:
Portugal - slavery was legal until 1869
The French Empire - abolished in 1848
Spain - 1873 in Puerto Rico, and 1886 in Cuba
Netherlands - ended 1873
And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.
Slavery is a horrifying practice, a cruel practice, and an abomination. But there aren't all that many nations out there with clean hands. Jeebuz had something to say about those without sin being allowed to cast the first stone.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Comes to the opposite conclusion about storm damage, stating that there is no discernible climate-change trend to hurricane damage in the US. Who's right? Perhaps it's too early to make a judgment given the data is so conflicting...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
great, let us all...
Embrace this report to smother the fear :-D
Extend this report so it encompasses more views on differing points.
Enveigle this report to make it more easily confusing to any sane person that might actually read it.
and
Encrypt it, so noone else will ever read it except for some lone crazy hacker with a lot of spare time in his/her mothers basement/attic/shed/nuclearfalloutshelter who actually managed to decrypt the report and is insane enough to read it.
captcha : oiling
The US wasn't exactly a leader here... They abolished slavery 32 years after Britain in 1833. After a gigantic war that killed 1.2 Million.
Of course it's hard for a politician to switch parties, but the Nixon strategy was about voters switching. Nixon was documented talking about the strategy; and to a large extent, it worked.
Indentured servitude is not another word for slavery.
BTW, who would have thought a Climate Change post on Slashdot would devolve into argumentative threads about slavery?
...how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".
Why do you think Melania is there?
Besides accumulated cyclone energy worldwide trending down for the last 25 years, there is no discernible climate-change signal in the US economic damage from hurricanes. As far as damage/bigger storms go, it seems what is predicted to happen from climate change isn't happening - the facts don't back it up.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Thanks for this. Stories like this make me want to give up on Slashdot. Comments like yours make me want to stay.
...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
A trade which still exists today in the Middle East:
It still exists here. Once someone is declared a felon, it's legal to enslave them. For example, paying them $1-2/day to fight fires because the wealthy don't want to pay their fair share of taxes so we can't afford to hire enough firefighters.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Red pill"? go back to 4 Chan, you racist troll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All of the garbage you're spewing is thinly veiled white supremacist propaganda bullshit.
I don't respond to AC's.
No, you dense fuck: if you suddenly start getting measurements that the amount of greenhouse gases or the global average temperature is going down, that would absolutely be a sign that global warming is not happening.
But that's not what's being observed by anyone. Greenhouse gases hae risen sharply since the industrialization and so has the average temp, resulting in more extreme weather as predicted by models.
The theory is very much disprovable. It's just that the data heavily supports the theory which is why the scientists who study the field are pretty unanimous about it, and those disagreeing with the data tend to work in unrelated fields and are usually paid by the petrochemical industry to spin BS.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
This is not dissimilar to the Republicans "emergency Appropriations" used to fuel the Gulf Wars in the early oughts. Push paying the piper ahead, and hope the other party is in power so you can blame them.
Enter 2007 and 2008.
And such foolery to claim that the Republican majority instantly fixed the economy. Because the great recession inherited by O'Blama the moment he was sworn in was not his fault, no more the better economy Trump inherited was his doing.
And we are starting to see the start of the Republican results two years in - now we can start judging, Here's a shot across the bow: General Motors is closing plants in Detroit, Ohio, Ontario and Maryland, and eliminating 14,700 jobs, 8,100 of those white collar.
In a move certain to annoy some Trump loyalists, GM is cutting 25 percent of the Executive staff. Sauce: https://www.10news.com/home/ho...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,”
You can also find that text in the SECOND paragraph of the summary. But yes also disappointed by the misleading headlines- Trump legit does enough worthy of mockery that there is no need to manufacture outrage, very poor reporting from that aspect.
funny seeing all you people who didnt say a word about obama doubling the national debt all of a sudden caring about fiscal responsibility
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Sorry but this is absolute horseshit. You're presenting this as an obvious fact but there's absolutely no evidence that these tax changes had any positive impact on what you're claiming. I had some more comments typed up to your other points, but come on dude.
Of course they didn't have any real impact yet. Real impact doesn't happen that quickly.
More likely the effects of the last couple years were just the O'Blama era running down.
As far as unemployment goes, GM might have something to nudge that number https://www.10news.com/home/ho...
Trump sycophant probably should have waited a while before braying about how his gawd made the trains run on time.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Errr ... msmash is a bot -- every somewhat regular slashdot reader knows that.
Which in turn makes your post suspicious.
I relise that attacking the United States and its government is a Past time for many but you forget your history, befor the US was the US it was colonies belonging to other powers for example England, France,spanish and it was these powers that brrought the institution of slaverty to Continent of North America long before the Formation of the US or its government. Some of the founding fathers including Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were ardent abolitionists. Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (Hamilton and Jay were members) Thomas Jefferson included a passage about slavery in the Declaration of independence. "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." It was of course removed to get the signatures of Southern Colonies. Slavery is and was a evil institution but it is hardly fair to place the entire onus of it upon a nation that was strongly divided over it. No offense but many of the citizens of this country that are not of colour have attachment to slavery either My family came from Germany to Flee Hitler's bowl full of crazy, and the one branch that was here were Northern Illinois Farmers who ran a station on the underground railroad.
However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...
A) Mueller cannot remove him from office. There are only two legal means to do that and both require Congress to act. Won't happen.
B) As vile as Trump is, suggesting he be killed is obscene and you are an asshole for suggesting it. Yes I'm aware he said it first but don't sink to his level or lower. I just want him gone, we don't need him dead.
At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.
While the democrats could impeach Trump since they control the House of Representatives, doing so will almost certainly not result in his removal from office without a 2/3 majority in the Senate which isn't going to happen. So we're stuck with Trump for another two years. The only saving grace is that now there is some viable opposition in the House to limit the amount of damage he can do. (which unfortunately is still substantial...)
My concern is that the democrats won't send up a good candidate and we'll end up with Trump for another 6 years like with did with W. I would have thought that impossible but apparently our country is over run by imbeciles who think Trump is the good guy.
Sure, we can, and we are applying a critical eye. However, your verbose hairsplitting is a weak attempt to normalize Trump. At this point with all he has said and done that is not possible. So good college try there to appear to be the "voice of reason".
Whether Trump agrees with all or part of the report, whether him and his kids really understand the reality and gravity of the situation we are in regarding climate change, whether Trump is "really a good guy" when not holding a phone or in front of a camera, none of that matters. Blabbering on about nuances of the report and whether Trump agrees with sub-paragraph five or the chart on page 87 doesn't matter.
If he had been a reasonable person from the get go, if he had displayed a small amount of intelligence or curiosity regarding the science, then we might give him a pass, as you are attempting to do. Trump has consistently attacked science and scientists from before he was elected.
Trump burned his bridges long ago, and is stuck on his island, or to use another analogy, up shit creek without a paddle.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
Bullshit. Was Nixon pushing to end anti-segregation busing, or not? It happened, it was a way to appeal to pro-segregation racists without openly using racial slurs. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they didn't happen.
And on the party switch: the number of *prominent* politicians that formally switched parties was three: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin. Many others, though, just started supporting republicans nationally, while continuing to call themselves democrats in local politics. And what really matters here is the voters - the South turned from blue to red, and black voters switched from red to blue.
There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs?
First question: are you purposefully lying to further your partisan agenda, or are you just that ignorant? The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves. Two key differences: 1. Servitude is temporary and 2. Servitude is not heriditary (your kids don't become someone else's property the moment they are born). Take your own red pill before spouting more lies.
That's probably because he reduced it you fucktwat
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
These things always correct themselves eventually, it's just a question of how long and how much pain.
"Always"? No they do not always correct themselves. Countries can and do follow paths that they cannot recover from. I doubt we are there yet but making sure it stays that way is going to take a lot of effort and vigilance and it's not clear if the citizens of the US are up to the task. The mere fact that Trump actually got elected should provide prima facie evidence that we have an alarming number of people with little moral compass and less brains.
If you *believe* in climate change, or science in general, you're just as lost as if you don't *believe* in climate change or science. No offense.
The whole point of science is, that you don't have to believe.
You can (and should) check! Or at least find somebody you trust, who can do it for you.
That's the beauty of it. Science is not right or left wing. It’s not even anti-religious!
All it demands, is that there is a point. That the prediction is *useful*, to be exact.
So if you can *tell* it exists, and the prediction is *reliable*, and everyone can *check* that, then even the existence of God is scientific.
That's why "sources" and "citations" by themselves don't give validity to anything (hello Wikipedia!). You having the ability to personally check and verify the research, is what can give it validity!
The thing is: You have to actually do that! ... Who verifies the verifiers? ... That’s you! :) ... In the end, for you, ... it's always you.
Because: Who watches the watchmen?
24.9% of households in the states that allowed slavery had slaves.
Most of the people who died in the civil war died of disease. It was a time when the population was stirred up as like never before, so disease spread.
No, I want to not give CREDIT for stopping committing a crime. The GP post claimed "for all... set slave free" i.e. it deserves credit for that. That's not really an achievement compared to, e.g. not having slaves in the first place.
Tim Cook excels in it.
Co-conspirator might be a bit far but its no coincidence that McConnel is the most hated person in US politics, he's less liked than Trump, the GOP, and congress. Good ol' Mitch has been fully sold out for a long long long time, anyone thinking Mitch would grow a backbone when confronted with Trump just didn't understand how swampy Mitch really is.
It doesn't say great things about the people of Kentucky that they keep putting this man in office, he simply is not an honest and faithful steward for the American people and almost everyone knows it.
He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse.
It doesn't really make any difference what he thinks in private, he is a public servant and his public actions - unequivocal support of Trump - speak for themselves. In supporting Trump he shares responsibility for undermining norms and causing severe damage to US reputation and international standing. If there was a crime "Moral negligence causing decline of USA", then Mitch McConnell would be guilty as a co-conspirator.
Maybe not but knowing that praising Trump and sucking up to him makes McConnell gag, like smellimg rotten meat does to the rest of us, is strangely satisfying.
2) Hate Trump as much as you want, but the Slashdot/AP a headline misrepresents what Trump. said. The Slashdot headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low". AP headline: "Trump: ‘I don’t believe’ government climate report finding. Notice where the quotation marks are. "I don't believe" are in quotes but the rest of the headline isn't. I doubt this bit of misleading headline was an accident by the very smart, competent AP editors. And according to the AP article what did Trump actually say? At https://apnews.com/c1dfca3088b... after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,” Trump said, adding that if “every other place on Earth is dirty, that’s not so good.” So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.
That's a lot of words to try and make it sound like the guy who said he didn't believe the report's conclusions (the important part), chose to release the report at an ideal time for minimizing the attention it might get, and has a long history of calling climate change a hoax, believed the report in some way.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's hilarious how deranged you are. You're ranting and raving incoherently in wall-of-text word salad, mindlessly regurgitating Rachel Maddow talking points.
All you had to say is, "orange man bad." and we'd know who you are and what you "think".
If you only understand simple phrases I’ll happily dumb that down for you: “Orange man big moron, you vote for him, you more bigly moron”.
In supporting Trump he helps gut the Big Government Democrats. Bully for both of them.
You kidding? Blacks sold blacks to the traders. The traders were the guys with boats. The slavers were the blacks in Africa which collected fellow blacks to be sold at the docks.
This history has been banned and erased to fit the narrative the Europeans and Americans were then ones responsible for the slave trade. If the Africans had put up a fight or never bothered going near the docks this wouldnt have happened.
Seriously, you are not going to convince Trump by citing the bill for damaging weather. For a lot of his friends, damaging weather means lucrative contracts for reconstruction of the damaged areas. Or exploiting the emergency to set foot on areas where previously were not welcome.
Similar with the Khashoggi case, when you can make a few extra billions, truth can wait until the next administration.
Co-conspirator is appropriate. If that was a bank robbery, Mitch would be a getaway car driver.
You are a sick and twisted individual that seems to think being a slaver is a culture. And maybe it is. And just like the Nazis is a culture that should be killed, thrown into a ditch and burned to ash â" I see the need for a new civil war so that once again we can wipe our the vile sickness of degeneracy and hate you and your ilk breed
Exxon has known about global warming since 1977. Your talking points have been written by the legions of PR firms and think tanks funded by the oil companies. You are a bleating sheep.
Assuming what you say is true, you still have to ask if reaching such goal is worthwhile trade off? That is, damage Trump presidency doing to US is undeniable. USA is worse-off internally or internationally than before Trump presidency. There is now credible talk of China replacing US as a dominant superpower.
in 50 years? He won't be around then, and he's arranged it so that the next 10 generations of his descendants will be living the high life no matter what happens to the rest of us. Climate change just means there will be fewer places that are nice places to live, and those places will be more expensive. So what? They already live in expensive places so they can be around other rich folks and away from the riff-raff. That's not going to change.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Working of Error
If you look back, there have been far more crazy presidents.
That's, of course, not making any of this even remotely OK.
But it's not like this was a *new* low, or like these here would be the darkest times.
I'd say the times of slavery, or just the racism (e.g. in the bus), or of the president *actually* being assassinated, or of civil war, all count as darker times. Even Nixon may count as darker. Although IMHO, every president after Nixon just was another instalment of Nixon. No matter the party.
My point is: We managed to fix things before. People are better than you think. The only thing is, that they require a certain level of direness, to become that social and active again.
Go to any place in America, where a hurricane destroyed everything. Sure, you might see looting. But you'll see *a lot* more people helping each other, kindness and the social behaviour, that made humanity so successful.
Oh, and in terms of can-do attitude, you're way better than e.g. the Germans (with their can't-do attitude).
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected.
It's actually stealing from the middle class. The top few percent make most of their income from capital gains, paying a lower tax rate (or in some cases, they are able to pay 0%).
For citations, see Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Is that fair?
Billionaires avoid paying taxes by borrowing. You, my friend, pay much more in taxes than many rich people.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's called intellectual honesty -- not normalizing Trump. The guy benefits from making his opponents crazy-angry and dragging them down to his fucking level. No need to misrepresent the man -- he says enough crazy/stupid shit as it is.
Don't confuse me with facts or reasoned arguments. Orange man bad! I don't like him so nobody should listen to what he said, just what I think he means.
You people are hilarious.
Can you really expect someone who lost money owning a casino to have anything worth while to contribute?
You don't understand how business works. The "Trump Entertainment Resorts" company, that owned and ran the casinos, lost money. Trump probably *made* money on the operation, as the company had to pay him to use his name, and for other things, probably.
Read up on how Hollywood accounting works, where a company is set up to make a movie, for the sole purpose of burning through all of it's money, which makes it's way back to the studio.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Um, what? That government was abolished in 1865. Yes, the US government still exists. But it is not the government it was 150 years ago. How could it be?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Before beating Hitler, winning WW2 seamed like an impossible task to many. We're all lucky Churchill held to his convictions and refused to accept defeat.
We've fixed the economy in the past. The economy was fixed at least partially by increasing taxes on rich people to pay for things like social security and worker programs. Now that we tax wealthy people so little, don't care about the working class and became stingy about helping the needy the economy is sick like it was the last time we used these policies. When this has happened in the past they weren't easy to overcome but we managed it more than once.
Defeatism is for losers! We can improve the economy, we can improve the environment and putting the effort into doing these things will improve peoples lives. This isn't end times, no Armageddon happening here now. Our problems are only insurmountable when we refuse to address hard issues and only focus on easy, comfortable, short term solutions. This has always been the plight of humankind. Innovate or die trying = evolution
The article is right. You are wrong.
That's because doubling the national debt *was* the fiscally responsible action for Obama. Why? Because the economy was in free-fall in the worse recession since the 1930s. The previous president had cut taxes, started 2 wars and increased entitlements (and increased the deficit before the recession started). Letting the economy bottom out naturally would have increased the debt more than trying to cushion it, and would have been a much worse result for Americans (less employment and more hardship). After dealing with the recession, the deficit shrank every year under Obama.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.
The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile
[citation needed]
All this America, America, America rhetoric everywhere makes me believe people forget this county is less than 250 years old -- still in diapers compared to much of the world
Let's compare shall we? This is a meme that the US is a "young" country but it really isn't. The US is actually rather old compared to most of the countries in the world. Don't confuse the age of a country with the amount of time people have been there. Italy has roots as far back as 700BC but the modern Italy we know today wasn't unified until around 1900 so saying Italy is older than the US is more than a little misleading. Having some old buildings built by ancestors doesn't equal being an old country.
The USofA is the oldest constitutional democracy in the world. The USA is the oldest country in the western hemisphere. It is older than most of the countries in Asia - only Saudi Arabia, Oman, Mongolia, China, and Japan have older governments and even then it's somewhat debatable depending on how you define the age of the country. China has been around a long time in various forms but the People's Republic of China hasn't - there are people alive today who predate the PRofC. The USA is older than most of the countries in Europe at least as they are currently organized. The people have been there a long time but the governments as they are currently constituted aren't generally very old.
That is absolutely correct.
But we discuss many theories that seem to have a solid basis as proven as a short hand, until better data disproves and better theory replaces.
emt 377 emt 4
Nice recitation of the Republican apologist talking points. But ultimately, the history of slavery has little to do with the lingering effects of slavery in the 20th and 21st centuries - and whether you want to address them or simply change the subject...
Whether or not actual Democratic politicians changed parties in the South in response to the Republican Southern strategy, it's hard to argue that Democratic voters didn't change their voting habits and eventually their parties in response to subtle and not-so-subtle pandering to their racial fears and prejudices.
So let's restrict our discussion of racial issues to the relevant ones today. Which party is actively attempting to suppress the votes of Black citizens - rather than to court those votes, which is after all an option to them? Which party is still actively courting white nationalist vote - whether or not they actually support a white nationalist agenda.
The Republican party has long been the party of moneyed interests, which pushes its unpopular economic program with a combination of lies, phony think tank-devised 'theories' and appeals to 'conservative' social positions. The Democratic party has to some extent morphed into the 'party of minorities' - based on having lost a large chunk of the white vote to Republicans' pandering. But at least they've retained an economic policy that (in theory - some of the more 'centrist' ones are pretty beholden to moneyed interests, but hey, let's not go down the false equivalence rabbit hole) actually would be better for the working class white voters than what Republicans are implementing (not just peddling).
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I dunno man, importing foreigners for labour seems to be more of a democrat thing. They love to talk about how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".
Importing foreign labor is a business thing. Business want to minimize their payroll costs. You, with your high standard of living and resistance to exploitation, are not what they are looking for.
My uncle, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, owns a farm in Pennsylvania which covers about 1000 acres. He has Mexicans come up on temporary work visas to work his farm. I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard.
Americans really don't want to do these jobs. At least not for the pay. And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive. Americans just aren't desperate enough. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean they won't wake up at 4:30 in the morning to do hard work. They'd rather leave that to the Mexicans.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
misrepresenting what he said and making this a personal attack in order to defend your agenda is deceitful.
One reason people do this is to win arguments despite not having the merit to win them.
It would be an interesting experiment to have mod points dedicated solely to the merit of arguments, rather than the strategy of arguments.
I'm sure it's fine, as in fine and well written.
I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it given he has a long history of openly denying the research of his own government.
What I'm not sure about, but actually certain of is that he has grabbed you hard by the pussy.
Are the consequences of climate change only dependent of hurricane damage? No. QED.
If we're going to split things into areas that allow for slaves versus those that don't, it would make sense to also absolve those that don't from responsibility.
I am from a state that didn't allow slavery, therefore I did no wrong.
But that's not how the aggressors is this argument would have it: they want everybody on the defense rather than only those who were culpable.
It's hilarious how deranged you are. You're ranting and raving incoherently in wall-of-text word salad, mindlessly regurgitating Rachel Maddow talking points.
All you had to say is, "orange man bad." and we'd know who you are and what you "think".
LOL, go back to 4Chan, dickhead. And yeah, the Orange Man is pretty bad. The fact that you can't see that says a lot about you.
most folks in slave states who didn't own slaves rented them. furthermore, the wealth produced by slave labor indirectly enriched the entire american economy in slave and free states alike through finance+investments and cheap consumer goods
Enjoy your hockey stick graph, you cock smoking tea-baggers.
They knew their gentlemanly agrarian culture couldn't survive without slavery. And, of course, it didn't.
So maybe they cared about their culture more than slavery, but only a disgusting culture needs slavery in the first place.
that history has not been erased, it's just irrelevant to any useful understanding of the economic drivers of the atlantic slave trade
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Obama entered office with a country 8 trillion in debt. He left a country 20 trillion in debt.
If you're going to attempt to bash the current administration, try not to be so dismissive of the damage the last one caused.
Actually it was at ~10 trillion when Obama took over and was at ~19 trillion by the time he left office so Obama added about 9 trillion. It breaks down like this:
FY 2010 -> deficit $1.294 trillion.
FY 2011 -> deficit $1.3 trillion.
FY 2012 -> deficit $1.087 trillion.
FY 2013 -> deficit $679 billion.
FY 2014 -> deficit $485 billion.
FY 2015 -> deficit $438 billion.
FY 2016 -> deficit $585 billion.
FY 2017 -> deficit $666 billion.
In addition to this he borrowed money from things like federal pension funds and the social security trust fund that resulted in a deficit of around 9 trillion. As you can see you most of the growth happened in his first term to a large extent (but not exclusively) as a result of the financial crisis caused by deregulation under Clinton/Bush. The debt growth slowed down significantly during Obama's second presidency when he added only ~2 trillion and he added regulations to rein in the worst excesses of the financial system. Your man Trump, aided by the party of fiscal responsibility, has so far added 2.5 trillion in two years and is thus on track to add some 10 trillion in two terms if he gets a second term and he has already systematically dismantled all the regulations Obama set up to rein in the banks. Trump's record so far is (and keep in mind that his raiding of federal pension funds is not in these figures any more than Obama's):
FY 2016 - deficit $585 billion.
FY 2017 - deficit $666 billion.
FY 2018 - deficit $833 billion.
And here is what Trump wants to do:
FY 2019 - deficit $984 billion.
FY 2020 - deficit $987 billion.
FY 2021 - deficit $916 billion.
Anybody notice a certain upward trend there?
ORANGE MAN BAD!!
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and
Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.
THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.
My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.
You are misinformed.
Tax revenue has been growing for decades, regardless of tax policy. But it is growing more slowly since the most recent tax cuts. https://www.thebalance.com/cur.... Supply-side economics has been debunked for years. It does not work. the only reason the idea lives on is that it serves as a propaganda item for the ultra rich.
The rich pay more in taxes because they benefit more from society's infrastructure. I'm sure you agree that people should pay their fair share.
Finally, you talk about outcomes when people don't start out in the same spot. Being born rich is a massive advantage, in many ways. The outcome can easily have nothing to do with effort or ability. You might have a point if everyone were born into the same circumstances. But that is not the case.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Ivan bots gonna ivan bot.
Yeah ok ivan
The tax cuts reduced revenue. Deficits have doubled.
Tax revenue is up, not down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...
Deficit is up, but nowhere near "doubled".
https://www.usgovernmentspendi...
They need to cut spending to cut the deficit.
Don't expect logic, there are studies that show that most american's can't do math and can't even understand basic math let alone complex budget and response mechanisms in a 17 trillion dollar economy.
Hell half the country can't even balance their own checkbook let alone understand why when 15% of the country is unemployed tax receipts drop 30% (business recipients drop when income drops), toss in 2 unfunded wars and all of a sudden you have trillion dollar deficits without increasing spending a dime.
On top of that you've got Fox news running a propaganda campaign talking about all the increased spending when outside inflation spending has actually gone down. So these people that don't understand math believe the propaganda and blame the spending on the president. They also believe the new president who immediately cuts taxes 15% when he says the tax cuts will pay for themselves even though it won't. They'll also believe the same president when he blames these deficits next year on the previous president.
As you said the laffer curve is a made up fantasy that doesn't exist but it's made Arthur Laffer rich! He's laughing all the way to the bank as his plans that each Republican follows blow holes in the economy in the hope that someday they can cancel social security and medicare because the deficits are too big from all the tax cuts and "trickle down" economics.
You are referring to a specific quote. However, T has claimed multiple times that climate change is a "hoax". I've seen nothing in his new statements that show he changed his mind about hoax-ness*. If he disagrees with the estimated costs of climate change, are the accountants/estimators also hoaxers?
I will agree that a more accurate headline about his recent statements would be something like, "T disputes Federal climate change cost estimates". But, the slashdot writer/editor may have been talking in a more general sense when they made the headline. The context is not clear, but headlines are not intended to carry every detail; that's what article text is for.
It looked at low, medium, and worse-case scenarios, if I'm not mistaken. That's the proper way to give such estimates.
* Perhaps he's saying other nations pollute but we don't. So is that a partial hoax? Clarity & consistency is not his strong point.
Table-ized A.I.
We have a spending and taxing problem. The budget was balanced during the Clinton years because taxes were sufficient to pay for expenses, millitary expenses in particular had declined substantially freeing capital to pay down the debt.
But when Bush took office the first thing he did is give a massive tax cut and dramatically increase military spending. We could balance federal deficits tomorrow if we revoked, but the Bush and Trump tax cuts and reduced military spending to 1999 levels. But this has never been about responsible spending, this has always been about running up deficits to the point that the GOP can claim we can't afford SS and Medicare.
And you benefit from Chinese modern slavery giving you cheap products. Are you culpable?
"Hey, I just bought the slaves. It's not like I sold them!"
- You, an idiot
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Get politics off here!
Red pilled losers are my fave! You ever touch a girl's boob? Don't lie, because we know you haven't.
if you taxed the rich at 100% of their labor it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit because 100% of 0 is still 0
Even without the results of the Mueller investigation, there are so many impeachable offenses, it's hard to make a comprehensive list of them.
Name one.
yes. i am both economically benefiting from the stolen wealth produced by third world labor and i am doing nothing to end this theft. even if i'm not the one placing bulk orders for suicide nets i still have a definite level of culpability
We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.
The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile
Shrinking the military budget would go a long way.
https://www.armstrongeconomics...
everyone is so worked up about this global warning thing, but the focus should be on the pollution china is doing...
Then you have quite literally convicted the entire human race.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Considering that the vast majority of societies throughout history condoned slavery, it is hardly fair to place the onus of any particular nation. THEY ARE ALL GUILTY.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Good Lord! Would you people pick up a history book? Slavery was rampant throughout human history. Western civilizations didn't invent it in the dark ages.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
However, your verbose hairsplitting is a weak attempt to normalize Trump.
Yes, and?
Trump is normal. That is the point - he's just a normal guy basically, and always has been.
However he get rabid haters that constantly misquote him or literally lie about what he said (as we see here). Taken all together, you get a picture of Trump that is not Trump...
So Trump SHOULD be normalized, so that everyone can understand what he is actually thinking and doing. It's actually demonization that is causing most of the issues because people just shut down instead of talking rationally.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ayup, the problem is that liberal reporters are reflexively anti-everything-Trump-says, whether their anti-position make sense or not.
The liberal reporters are acting like immature children. I guess they simply are immature children. That is OK, everyone eventually grows up, but this crowd acts as if everyone else are immature children too, which is very tiring to adults.
black Africans are not monolithic. fulani captured bamana and sold them to taureg who sold them to portuguese etc
If the Germans could recover from the Nazis, there's hope for us. Provided we don't set off WWIII and end civilization, that is.
I don't believe Trump exits, he's too stupid to be true and a hoax! Fake News!!!
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
It's inconceivable that pollution has consequences (Ewww! Please don't ever say that word!!) and that cleaning up or adapting to messes is more expensive than preventing them. Inconceivable!
Everyone knows that the pathway to happiness and efficiency is to just drain your car's motor oil onto the driveway whenever you're changing it out, throw trash out your windows, shit on your kitchen floor and urinate on your electronics.
So why wouldn't the atmosphere work the same way as everything else?! Duh, of course it does. Pollution having expensive consequences is a myth. Every minute of your life experience tells you that littering and pollution makes life better and that happiness and frugality is living in a pile of trash. That libtards think life in a trashpile is worse than picking up the toys on your floor after playing with them, shows how out-of-touch they are.
And make no mistake. I hear what people are saying, and while they don't all agree on whether pollution is a bad thing or a good thing, one thing they do agree on is that it's a controversial, partisan disagreement. Falling for the unproven, faith-defying nonsense that turns people against pollution is a specifically left-wing thing. (Seriously, just ask anyone. Everyone you poll will confirm that being concerned about the so-called "consequences" of atmospheric pollution is something that a right-winger doesn't do or ever talk about, because they know it's a hoax.) That your "conservative" grandparents thought pollution was bad, just shows they were in on the libtard Chinese hoax, even way back in the 1950s.
Pollution is a myth. That's the one thing we know, and if it weren't, that would mean its consequences are real, and of course, that cannot possibly be. Check your bible and your feelings, and you'll realize that this pollution myth is unbelievable.
The "damage" to the welfare state is not the same as "damage" to the US. China becoming "dominant" is a sad joke. A joke because it is hilariously funny. Sad, because you believe it.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
And jacking off
Which jurisdiction pays felon firefighters $1-2/day? Let me guess, none. These are felons currently serving their prison sentence where the non-violent ones get to go out and work under guarded supervision. Some of them you see alongside the road picking up trash. Others apparently get to fight fires.
Naw, the whole southern strategy thing is a complete myth. When actually studied, the voters in the south who voted Republican were the ones who moved in from the North, the new wealthy suburbanites and those who were younger, all groups which were the least racist. The South also turned Republican starting with the least racist states first, not the other way around, the opposite of what you'd expect if it were racist voters doing the switching.
If you give it a second's thought, the idea that the racists in the Democratic Party, who stayed racist in the South for a long time past the Civil Rights bills, would be left by racist voters in favor of Republicans who were the party of abolition and who voted for the Civil Rights bills much more is silly. People don't switch to the opposite party because that party is known to be less-aligned with their views....
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Wow, I know this country is divided but damn its nasty in here.
...and in many Middle East countries there was slavery until the mid 1970s.
No, it's easy enough to argue that racist voters in the South stayed with the Democratic Party and those who voted Republican were the ones who moved in from the North, the new wealthy suburbanites and those who were younger, all groups which were the least racist. A couple of professors wrote a whole book analyzing the change in voting patterns and disproved your myth.
The South also turned Republican starting with the least racist states first, not the other way around, the opposite of what you'd expect if it were racist voters doing the switching.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Sigh!
The budget was "balanced" during the Clinton years because the Social Security money was moved into the general account. There was no balance.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Natural disasters only cost more than in the past because we are richer and have more expensive stuff to get damaged, at least if you believe the science and the IPCC report. The trend has nothing to do with Climate Change, despite this summary somehow deciding to attribute the entire cost of every hurricane to Climate Change, as if there were never any hurricanes before and they don't have any other causes.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I'm not going to disagree with you. Yep, it's true, his confrontational style and big mouth are not an asset and have done more harm than good..
HOWEVER, that's style and personality. When I vote I'm judging on policy first. Style doesn't override policy in my perspective.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The Russians didn't use slave labor? I don't know, up to the 1980s more or less? And now we have have Slavery 2.0, the penal system.
But seriously, the weather... skies seem kinda hazy all the time now. wonder if it's all that air traffic
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The trouble is that I'm old enough to remember the 1970s Global Cooling craze. I'm sure Trump will remember that too. The Global Warming fad will pass - people will get bored with it eventually.
And, as important, there are more people.
Oh, I guess that you missed the "supply" and "demand" lecture. But go ahead with your one sided blame game.
believe,at this stage, any word at all that came out of cartoon president Trump's mouth, or tweeted out of his other end?
Those that are counting are saying he's averaging just less than one lie or inconsistent-with-self public statement per day.
Something like 6,400 such statements in 690ish days of office.
Why are we paying any attention at all?
He's a walking self-parody.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Whoosh... Apparently you never heard of the UNIX epoch?
There's hundreds, maybe thousands of voices, all with credentials to back them up, that are saying it's right and correct, against his 'word', backed by nothing credible at all. Human-caused global climate change is a Real Thing, and all the denial in the Universe won't change that or bury the evidence anymore. Sadly we may likely not be able to stop it at all now, so we may all be doomed. But I'll be damned if we're not going to smack the shit out of all the deniers who, through their inaction, helped make it inevitable.
If I am misinformed, you are engaging in class envy/warfare. There is nothing wrong with being rich.
IF your ideal is that everybody has the same amount of stuff, then you long for socialism and communist government.
I contend that this only makes EVERYBODY but the political elite poor and history is rife with examples of what I mean. The most recent example is just the other side of the gulf of Mexico. Venezuela was once a rich capitalistic society which had rich natural resources. It's been totally devastated by socialism, to the point that in less than two decades it is a total mess, mass starvation runs wild and only the political elite *have* anything. Robbing the rich to give to the poor doesn't work, never has, never will. You will always have poor people no mater what you do with taxes.
So what is your ideal? What does such a society look like? I dare say that unless you are actually honest and thinking, your ideas are unworkable and history proves it, or you are able to accept capitalist ideas actually accrue to the betterment of more people than any other option.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Defecate, deficit. Take your pick.
I think your reading comprehension is lacking. The title of the post here was not in quotes, and indeed represents what was said in the article.
You say, "Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact."
So basically you were saying that, Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding, since he doesn't believe the finding about economic impact given in the report.
âoeI donâ(TM)t believe it,â Trump said, adding that if âoeevery other place on Earth is dirty, thatâ(TM)s not so good.â So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.
The conclusion about the impact is part of the report, QED, Trump does not agree with the report.
At 7:00 am CST we had five up for a postings on slavery and other off-topic comments. This to me suggests that some bots have crept into the "like" system
They were always there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie.
Brother, you say an awful lot of wacked-out shit around here, but denying the existence of the southern strategy as democrat propaganda is right up there with the gay frogs and climate denial from you infowars types.
You should let wikipedia know that their article with 110 citations is democrat propaganda
Nope. The South used conscription at a lower rate than enlistment. With a lot of corruption at lower levels.
And of course, the confedracy exempted planters.
illegal immigrants are modern slaves. Got it.
Don't need to actually check with the still living voters, do we?
You can just pretend you don't know the three kinds of lies.
But me, I can literally walk down my street in a Southern town and confirm it by meeting people.
It's just more of the same denialism as they slowly backpeddle when it becomes clear that their current stage makes them look like residents of a loony bin:
All based on the incredibly strong evidence that it would deeply inconvenience some combination of buddies who own oil companies and people who refuse to drive anything weighing less than 10 tons over the incredibly rugged and adventurous terrain known as a city street.
Let me get this correct.. You are talking about Obama right?
The guy who said that 3% GDP growth was never going to happen and we needed to get used to less?
The guy who campaigned for Hillary claiming Trump would kill the economic recovery?
The guy who pretty much blamed Bush for all his economic troubles, who's party had control of the House, Senate AND the Whitehouse for 2 full years yet couldn't fix anything?
THAT Obama ?
Let's see.. GDP growth ABOVE 3% with every indicator that it's sustained growth for the last 18 months? Record unemployment numbers for a number of demographics, including reducing welfare roles and getting more and more people working than thought possible?
I think Obama is wrong.... No, I KNOW he is... He was wrong about many things, he's unsurprisingly wrong about this too.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Tit for tat, if you claim we should forget Democrat support of slavery The Republican party has long been the party of moneyed interests, than please provide examples of recent Democrats that weren't beholden to moneyed interests.... Hillary being the most glaring example.
love is just extroverted narcissism
supply and demand
dont blame the african miners for shit labor conditions trying to get metal for your phones either
For unemployment, one needs to look at the labor participation rate, the number of people working vrs the ones not working. The headline number is only the people drawing unemployment, which doesn't last very long. We've been putting more people to work for the last 18 months with an increasing labor participation rate and pulling folks off of welfare and other public assistance programs.
What's more, average hourly wages are also increasing. More people are working more hours and getting paid more.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is Trump level stupid.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that damage is limited to welfare state? From where I stand, Trump is indiscriminate in damaging everything he touches.
Actually... they were enslaved by other Africans, then bought by individuals in the US. If you're gonna cry about slavery, at least try and get some facts right.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Where you complaining about this when Obama was in office? I doubt it.
Where I agree that deficits are a serious issue, I openly wonder if you really care about them and how much you are willing to do about them...
AND are you willing to discuss the national debt in total, and forget this deficit only canard. Because until we are willing to actually look at the whole picture, including entitlements and social programs, I'm going to just sit here and watch as you point fingers for political reasons.
I'd welcome a discussion about limiting the federal government's budget. I actually think that if we simply STOPPED baseline budgeting, by setting the baseline to 0% increase across the board, we could balance the budget and start retiring the debt before the end of the decade. But I'll bet that your side of the isle would bellyache and ballyhoo about all the budget "cuts" we where making and we'd hear about starving children and tossing grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's also the government that really kept all those slaves but in a more discreet way by putting them all into prison and then making them work as part of their sentence far far below minimum wage.
Absolute nonsense. I will assume you've never robbed your neighbors. That puts you ahead of anyone who robbed their neighbors then later decided to stop doing so. They don't get to say "Yeah, but we're the ones who STOPPED robbing people!"
Also, please learn what the word "literally" means. You're literally using it incorrectly.
The voters in the South DIDN'T switch parties - and it's obvious that they didn't just by looking at the election results. It took until the 1990s for Republicans to start consistently winning elections in the South. And much of that was driven by migration of young white Republicans from the Northeast down into the South.
By the way - did you know that Southern blacks voted 80-90% for the Democrats even at the height of the Jim Crow oppression era?
The tax cuts did NOT reduce revenue. This is trivial to check: tax revenues for first half of 2018 were up 9%.
You seem to be trying to claim that the increased revenue is due to the "fiscal stimulus" (what stimulus was that in 2017, anyway?) but you can't present any evidence of it. You claim we aren't at the 'top' of the Laffer curve - assuming there is only one local peak, of course - and yet you cannot draw the Laffer curve to show where are *are*.
Finally, I'm not rich - yet I get back more than $1000 thanks to Trump. The rich actually get screwed, thanks to the massive decreased state-tax credits. Those California millionaires no longer get subsidized by the Feds for having absurd state taxes.
You have a definite level of stupidity.
No, he's right, and you're an idiot. Every human is descended from slave owners. You've convicted all of us.
Slavery was not a crime when it was being practiced. That doesn't make it right, but you can't hold people that weren't even thought of being alive at that time responsible for others doing what was normal in the time period. Even if today it is considered heinous.
--Highdude702(mods)
yes but its a comparatively low level
Drinky is a retarded troll. Fetal alcohol syndrome. Very sad.
Your pathetic attempts at deflection won't save the worst traitor in American history from spending the rest of life in prison.
supply doesnt drive demand
It still exists here. Once someone is declared a felon, it's legal to enslave them
I believe the term you're looking for is "prison." You can google it if you're unfamiliar with the term.
Is there such a thing as "Justice Republicans" akin to the Justice Democrats that don't take corporate money?
horror vacui
The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves.
Oh OK. So modern sex slaves aren't actually slaved, they're just "indentured sex workers".
Have fun defending that one at a feminist convention. I'll start writing your obituary.
[I'm not the same AC] Forgiveness is one thing, forgetting is another. I didn't personally have any ancestors in the US during the time of slavery, but I would still agree that we should make reparations to the minorities that are still harmed by the aftermath of it. For fuck's sake, racial discrimination is not some ancient history, it's going on today. People of color in the US have systematically been denied the benefits that their labor has produced for us white people. Just compare the median wealth of black vs. white families. It is all of our responsibility to try and mend this.
NO! I will NOT pay any kind of carbon tax. get that through your damn heads.
Even Wikipedia says you're full of shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth
When they talk about "State's Rights" and confuse your poor helpless little brain with their propaganda, what they meant was that they wanted their laws from south to apply in other State's. They didn't mean they wanted the state of Georgia to choose the rules in the State of Georgia, what they meant was that when they traveled to a different State, or to a Federal Territory, they wanted Georgia laws to somehow still apply to that traveler, instead of the local laws in the place they they were visiting.
That's an obviously not-workable policy, but it is what popped up out of their politics in the actual past. The North said no, because obviously the State you're in is the State who has the right to determine the local law. And no fucking way that the North was going to let you bring slaves with you on a business trip to a non-slave State. That's just absurd. But to try to make it happen, the southern States sent an army into northern territory, surrounded a military fort, pointed their weapons at it, and then later quibbled about who actually fired the first shot. As if it fucking matters who shoots first when you send an invasion force and point your weapons at a military installation.
The only fight to preserve a threatened culture was that hundreds of thousands of volunteers fought to preserve the United States. And won.
Yup, they mention that the frequency of manor disasters is rising, and they're trying to tailor the report to something the current president should understand by including dollar figures...
But lets forget the frequency bit and focus on the $ amount
That does not square with the storms being worse, though.
If everything was the same value/cost as in the past, wouldn't stronger average hurricanes equal greater damage?
Sounds like somebody derp'd and hand-waved right past the math they were leaning on.
Your main mistake, and a common one, was that you didn't figure out what the article was about. You read the headline, and the headline was phrased in such a way that it matched your prejudices, and so you assumed that the content supported whatever claims you might make.
What that article actually says is that global GDP went up, and so (predictably) did the value of infrastructure damaged in disasters; and that if you do the chart showing cost of damage in dollars, it trends up, and if you do the same thing with the chart in percent of GDP, it trends down.
That tells you fucking nothing about how much the increased severity of storms costs. And it doesn't even try to. It merely is showing that you shouldn't rush to judgment about the causes of a trend line going up or down, or just point at charts and say "climate change." But you didn't understand that message at all, and instead, you fucking pointed at it and said, "see, not climate change." Fucking moron! If the lesson says "X is not the correct answer here," that does not imply that the answer is -X.
HURR Dee HURR everyone I don't like is a Russian bot!
1) The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.
You would probably want to rewrite this for accuracy, since you seem to be implying that the US was subject to British Colonial Courts, when in fact, it was recognized as a sovereign nation with hundreds of thousands of slaves where it was established de jure through the 1783 Treaty of Paris. (And existing de facto some years before), but even aside from that, your claim fails because Anthony Johnson was himself recognized as having been held in servitude prior to having been emancipated, as were many others, and especially and particularly were matters of racist discrimination argued before and after, separate and distinct from Johnson's lawsuit against another, white Virginian, who held a man in bondage that was disputed with him.
Try reading the Amistad and Dred Scott cases. Taney's opinion is well established as arguing matters to advance a racist agenda.
Sorry, but as much as you want to blame a black man, or failing that, a liberal or progressive, or Democrat, your inane regurgitation of random trivia doesn't actually make for a persuasive argument, but rather exposes your tortured and tendentious reason for the nonsense it really is.
You really need to escape that faulty cognitive paradigm of yours. It leads you astray in your argumentation.
Strat
PS, the segregation of the US military continued throughout the period after the Civil War, particularly in the Navy,but as the Army had specific regiments (known colloquially as the Buffalo Soldier) and Marines simply refused to enlist black soldiers, claiming otherwise is just not factual. Go to the African-American History Museum with Lindsay Graham to find out. It is literally on display. Then take him to the Holocaust Museum to help him understand the plight of victims of Trump's anti-asylum policies.
Sorry.
Strat
Everyone understands exactly what he's thinking and doing. Well, everyone but his supporters. And more often than not, he himself.
careful, it's easy to let anger distract you, he reduced the deficit, not debt
Oh OK. So modern sex slaves aren't actually slaved, they're just "indentured sex workers".
Have fun defending that one at a feminist convention. I'll start writing your obituary.
Nice job deflecting to a totally unrelated topic instead of, you know, rebutting a single point. As well, you introduced more lies. Sex slaves don't have a legal contract with terms agreed to voluntarily - otherwise, they *would* just be called sex workers, and indeed they are.
The Irish *signed up* for their temporary servitude. It is in no way comparable to the involuntary, lifelong, hereditary slavery of Africans. This whole "Irish slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by conservative apologists, who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.
> He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts.
Mexican culture has a long history of alcohol consumption, so I'm not sure if that one is quite accurate.
But one thing I heard is that foreign workers require less housing. American workers required five trailer homes for one family. Central American workers used one trailer per family.
Think about the cost savings to the owner. He has a massive incentive to lie.
TFS talked about losses from hurricanes as a sign of the harm we're facing. When, in fact, there is no climate-change related harm from hurricanes. If they get that wrong - how much more do they get wrong?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
> And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.
Again, there are some Muslim countries that didn't outlaw it until the '60s, '80s, or possibly '90s. A few still practice it.
But it doesn't matter, because even the Soviet Union still used slave labor (by your definition). They ran the gulag system and a bunch of German POWs were doing forced labor long after the war was over.
...and in many Middle East countries there was slavery until the mid 1970s.
Oh yes - But 'Murrica is the only one people think of when speaking of slaves.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Russians didn't use slave labor?
I made no claims to putting a comprehensive list together. Point is, mention slavery, and everyone points a finger at the 'Murricans. When in fact, a lot of presumed more civilized nations practiced slavery much longer than we did.
And a huge difference, exemplified by that willingness to only blame us.
We own it. Time for our betters to own up to their sins.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer"
Is this some thinly veiled effort to blame slavery on black people?
"The US government and military were not racially segregated prior to President Woodrow Wilson(D) who ordered segregation to be implemented."
Segregated units did exist as far back as the revolutionary war.
"There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves"
Even if this were true, does that make it any more acceptable?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
besides the very end ("A New Low") everything matches what he said. He doesn't believe the government climate report's finding. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.
The rest of your post is just getting into the weeds. The worst case scenario is irrelevant. The best case scenario is catastrophic. That's according to well over 95% of scientists. That number hits the high end of 99.9 when you take out folks who are paid by the oil industry.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It is more like indentured servitude than slavery, because they volunteer for the work in exchange for a wage and reduced time. In slavery, there is no volunteering.
First, let's clear the skies. We got a helluva smog problem right now.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
As someone pretty well read in current events, meaning ACTUALLY READING and not just Facebook headlines from CNN, yes, I can say Trump often does bring a reasonable view to the table. Your comment highlights the exact problem I see, which is people foam at the mouth over Trump but have no idea why, other than very suspiciously skewed media headlines.
Sorry, I actually read the article. You should try it. We aren't experiencing stronger hurricanes on average, so there is no need to account for that in damage levels or in cause. Here's a relevant quote from the article you either didn't actually read or didn't understand:
Let you claim this is an outdated analysis, here's the most recent analysis of that very thing published in Nature just yesterday. From the abstract:
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed [Pushes the glass off the table. It shatter on the floor, and several small machines come out to clean it up.] Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.
Except the frequency hasn't actually increased, according to the latest analysis and the other analysis (cited by the previous link in the post you responded to). So no one is forgetting about frequency, nor intensity, but according to the science, neither of those have changed, instead they've been consistent since 1900.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I thought Pelosi had the title? She cant get her own party to fully support her...
And honestly, the big change in American politics was the leftward shift from Democrats turning in to Socialists, not Republicans going to the right. Todays Republicans are more like Democrats from the 80s.
And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.
+
By that logic, American jails are also slave labor camps. No, the 5 cents per hour they can only spend in the prison store doesn't count.
Yesterday, Nature Sustainability published an article on the normalize cost of Hurricanes hitting the US:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0165-2?WT.feed_name=subjects_business-and-commerce ...from the abstract "Consistent with observed trends in the frequency and intensity of hurricane landfalls along the continental United States since 1900, the updated normalized loss estimates also show no trend."
Basically, what they have done is accounted for cost and population and land build-up and then compared Hurricanes hitting the US. They did not find a trend, actually they found a complete lack of a trend, for more severe storms (within recent decades).
The argument that "Climate Change is causing more and strong Hurricanes" is now dead and the winner for strongest Hurricane is still the one that hit Miami in 1926.
There might be other things one can use to argue for Climate Change, but "more and stronger" hurricanes is now not a scientific reason.
Trump is normal. That is the point - he's just a normal guy basically, and always has been.
Yep just a normal incredibly rich pathological liar from an incredibly rich family.
Don't worrr Kendall, mate, if you just squeeze your eyes and believe really hard how normal Trump is then you too, a normal guy, will also get to be incredibly rich. Because that's totally how causality works.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Black Africans enslaved black Africans long before any white people did. Where do you think the white people got their slaves from?
Yep just a normal incredibly rich pathological liar from an incredibly rich family.
Sorry, normal for a politician.
You'll see Trump hugging the Obamas after he is out of office, just as Bush does today.
Trump was at Hillary's daughter wedding...
Trump is still Trump, was before and will be after. The only thing that changes is the press coverage.
believe really hard how normal Trump is then you too, a normal guy, will also get to be incredibly rich
Actually I do believe in Trump's basic philosophy of success - really hard work. It has in fact worked to me to the point where I am a lot better off than most people on the planet, even though I started with nothing and came from a poor family.
That's what also got Trump the presidency, was relentless travel and stumping. But then if you knew anything about Trump (which was easy to do before he became president) you would know that is normal for him...
Trump is obviously doing something right if he's able to sleep with porn stars and marry models (whatever the order may be) and have giant buildings with his name on them in multiple cities. He may be flawed as a human but I've not seen anything that says he has any worse flaws than any other president to date, and in fact Trump may be slightly ahead of the curve.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
BTW, who would have thought a Climate Change post on Slashdot would devolve into argumentative threads about slavery?
Well, maybe the conservatives begin to think that "slavery isn't bad (and not our fault anyway)" is an argument easier to win than "Global Warming is a hoax".
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
But to try to make it happen, the southern States sent an army into northern territory, surrounded a military fort, pointed their weapons at it, and then later quibbled about who actually fired the first shot. As if it fucking matters who shoots first when you send an invasion force and point your weapons at a military installation.
Are you talking about Fort Sumter? That's not in "northern territory" by any definition, but rather in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.
It's misleading to say that Germany employed it until 1945. That implies that it was continuously employed in Germany from time immemorial until 1945. In fact, slavery ceased to exist in Western Europe in the High Middle Ages (albeit later practiced in those countries' overseas colonies), and even serfdom was abolished in Prussia (i.e., what became the majority of modern Germany in 1871) in 1810.
You remain wrong, I'm afraid. I didn't say convict anyone, I said you don't get extra credit for stopping doing something that you know is wrong rather than just not doing it in the first place. Then coolsnowmen decided to move the goalposts. I didn't go along with this, but apparently you did. That's fine, but that wasn't the point of the original post.
Saying the US should get credit for ending slavery is like saying Hitler should get credit for being the guy who killed Hitler.
Nice job deflecting to a totally unrelated topic instead of, you know, rebutting a single point.
Nice job sticking your head in the sand and pretending that your point wasn't rebutted.
As well, you introduced more lies. Sex slaves don't have a legal contract with terms agreed to voluntarily - otherwise, they *would* just be called sex workers, and indeed they are.
Sure they do. You're completely ignorant of how much of sex slavery operates, just like you're completely ignorant of how the Irish were treated. The issue is rarely the initial agreement; it's in the susequement abuse, and the power which the owner holds over his slaves.
Are you under some fucked up impression that indentured servitude is actually legal?
The Irish *signed up* for their temporary servitude.
Some did, some didn't. Doesn't really matter; signing up to be a slave doesn't mean that you're not a slave.
Maybe you're confused about what the word means? You know, the dictionary can help you out there:
slave
noun
1. a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
it is in no way comparable to the involuntary, lifelong, hereditary slavery of Africans.
It is in many ways comparable. I think the phrase you were looking for is "it is somewhat different". Which would be true. Still doesn't mean the Irish weren't slaves, though.
This whole "Irish slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by conservative apologists, who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.
The whole "Irish slavery isn't really slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by far left lunatics who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.
Horseshit. The SS trust fund was spent in Regan's first term, mostly on SDI. What you talk about happening in the late 90's happened a decade and a half earlier and had no effect on the budget surpluses run during the Clinton years. Go back and read the history because you don't know what happened.
The US ran a total account surplus for a few years leading up to 1999 due to dramatically reduced military spending and fiscal restraint. When Bush took office that was when we had all those congressional hearings about being worried about paying off the debt to fast so they threw together a plan to cut taxes predicated on those surpluses continuing. We call that tax cut the Bush tax cut, 90% of which went to billionaires. The rapid market crash and recession that followed the 9/11 attacks cratered those surpluses and reversed it doing double damage on the deficits that followed. On top of that Bush dramatically increased the military ranks from about 440K soldiers to more than 580K and then started two wars that were paid for entirely with debt.
What had been a rapidly shrinking debt exploded in just a few years after the bush tax cuts and the recession. Then the 90's and early 00 deregulation spree ran its course into the subprime mortgage crisis and subsequent great recession which caused tax receipts to fall by more than 30%. The massive account deficit and recession Obama inherited started his term with a trillion in new debt a year. Obama whittled that down to $500 billion with solid fiscal policy but then stupidly extended the Bush tax cuts and the first thing Trump does is another HUGE $1.5 Trillion tax cut that guts all the progress in reducing deficits and on top of that overrides the sequester deal and boosts military spending another 20%.
The end result is we now have more than $700 BILLION a year in interest payments and the debt is growing by a trillion a year. Military salaries alone account of almost half of military spending now because the number of troops has approached 600K, not even including all the private contractors the government now uses that cost about 10X doing it with their own forces.
I doubt a bunch of monkeys throwing darts and a dart board to determine spending and taxing could have done a worse job than Congress has since 1980.
I'll say it again, both the bush and Trump tax cuts should be abolished, the military full time rolls should be paired down to the late 90's totals and spending on programs and equipment pared back. Overall military spending should be dramatically reduced and the astronomical wasteful spending of the DOD should be dramatically curtailed. The top tax bracket should be increased to 50% or more and several other changes to not only reduce spending but restore the revenue lost to STUPID tax cuts that have done nothing but spiral the debt.
This countries most prosperous decades were when taxation was the highest.
The US has imprisoned the largest percentage of their population, exploiting their labour for profit. With wealthy lobbyists pushing for ever harsher sentencing...
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
The reality is that most politicians are not willing to actually do anything about it - so in practice don't believe it - whilst claiming the opposite.
^^This is why people are coming from South America to the States. We had the same situation in the UK - people coming from all over the EU to do work the Brits don't want to do. Polish plumbers were the archetype, but there were plenty of other examples. Brexit (if it goes ahead) will put an end to that, but it won't change how the labour market works.
So Trump SHOULD be normalized, so that everyone can understand what he is actually thinking and doing. It's actually demonization that is causing most of the issues because people just shut down instead of talking rationally.
People who misquote/lie about someone dont care about understanding that person.
Such people just want their way.
His gut worked so well that he's been married 3 times and has had multiple bankruptcies. Captain Covfefe is a moron.
Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.
Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.
I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.
I don't believe it either, I would bet real money that 2050 will be COLDER than it is now, except that I'll be 100, and most likely dead, in 2050.
Actually it does. If there is scarcity, price increases, driving down demand.
I'll shovel that pile back if I where you..
Under Clinton the accounting rules where changed and SS was taken OFF budget. So, the deficit due to SS spending was moved from the federal budget to off the official books. Clinton benefited because SS was a net loss, removing the SS payments from his budget deficient. So Clinton basically did a accounting slight of hand and you guys some how think he was a miracle worker with the budget deficit.
This was roughly the same as you simply deciding to pay the mortgage but not including the cost in your budget. Oh yea, your budget deficit looks good on paper, it went down, but you are borrowing more money than ever before.
What we need to be looking at is total government debt as a % of GDP. In which case, Clinton didn't improve anything and Obama would rate at the bottom of the list of administrations for doubling the already huge national debt.
Trump isn't doing all the much better, but with GDP growth above 3.5% it's not as bad as Obama's anemic sub %2 growth rate. Like it or not Trump is at least headed in the right direction with the total debt as a % of GDP by slowing the rate of growth. Rome wasn't built in a day but if we can sustain 4% GDP growth and keep the budget growth under 3%, eventually, we will lower the national debt as a % of GDP. If we can do this w/o too much inflation, even better, but I doubt we can avoid that given we have pretty much reached total employment now and GDP growth will be driven by productivity gains from now on.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.
The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile
Shrinking the military budget would go a long way.
A long way to what?
First, the military is one of the few actually mandated responsibilities of the Federal Government outlined in the Constitution. Of all the things the Fed does, this "provide for the mutual defense" of the states should be a priority.
Second, the money spent on the military is actually necessary, unless you want to advocate we depend on an isolationist foreign policy. The US military is a huge force for good around the world, we keep evil forces and countries intent on domination in check. I remember throwing Iraq out of Kuwait back in the 80's, I understand that our forces in South Korea keep a tin pot dictator intent on conquest at bay. I also know that our forces in Europe keeps the Russian's at bay. There are many historical examples of the US military doing great things for the world.
Third, like it or not, military force is what keeps us free and productive. Keeping the conflicts of the world "over there" has huge economic benefits for us here at home.
From my perspective, the military is worth every penny they spend and every dime they waste.
Then there is the whole "How much does the military actually get?" argument. It's what? About 20% ? You won't be able to make up the deficit even if you deleted the whole military part. $600 Billion just doesn't go that far these days where we have $1 Trillion deficits.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The whole "Irish slavery isn't really slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by far left lunatics who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.
Really? Then why does "Irish slavery" not show up as a term in, you know, ANY historical documents? All those far left lunatic historians must have destroyed the evidence in a massive coverup!
The reason that indentured servants are not called slaves is because they are *not the same thing*. Is indentured servitude a good practice? No. Was it ethical to use it to abuse the Irish? Of course not. But is it slavery, or in any way comparable to the treatment of Africans as cattle? No fucking way. We have different words for the practices for a reason.
Indentured servitude is slavery in the same way that cubicle work is imprisonment. In both cases, you spend a lot of time in a confined area, but in one case, you are forcefully put there against your will.
And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.
+
By that logic, American jails are also slave labor camps. No, the 5 cents per hour they can only spend in the prison store doesn't count.
Your assignement, if you care to accept it, is to compare how American prisons are the equivalent of the Mauthausen concentration camp.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
First, let's clear the skies. We got a helluva smog problem right now.
That's the Chemtrails. Hellary is behind this - she's put emasculation chemicals in the jet fuel. Not to mention the mind control poisons in the fire retardant from the firefighting planes. They don't call it retardant for nothing.
I should really stop writing that stuff - I bet I've inadvertently launched a dozen or more conspiracy theories.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's misleading to say that Germany employed it until 1945. That implies that it was continuously employed in Germany from time immemorial until 1945
Nonsense. That would mean that it was misleading to say that the US employed it until the Emancipation proclamation. The US had only existed for a little under a hundred years. The metric isn't time immemorial, it is that an existing government employed it.
The national Socialists employed it until they were stopped. The US employed it until the north took first place in the US Civil War. That is all.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Nonsense. That would mean that it was misleading to say that the US employed it until the Emancipation proclamation. The US had only existed for a little under a hundred years. The metric isn't time immemorial, it is that an existing government employed it.
"Time immemorial" was a rhetorical flourish. My point is that "until," without a corresponding "from," implies "from the beginning," or at least "from a very long time previous." In America, there was indeed slavery from very close to the beginning of English settlement, and certainly from the beginning of the country. That is why it would be correct to say that America had slavery "until the 13th Amendment." (Not until the Emancipation Proclamation -- slavery remained legal in Unionist slave states such as Maryland, even after the Emancipation Proclamation.)
On the other hand, slavery in Germany ceased to exist for many hundreds of years, before being revived for about 6 years. Someone reading your statement, but otherwise ignorant of the context, would understand you to mean that in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s, one could find slaves in Germany. That is most certainly not correct.
Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.
Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.
I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.
It seems like you missed this part: "I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
It also seems like you missed this part: "And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive."
The commodities markets are world wide. My uncle has to compete with farmers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper. His selling prices are constrained by that. And he is playing by the rules. His Mexicans come here legally. I don't know if he provides health care (though he does pay their room and board while they are here) but he does comply with OSHA and other labor laws. This is all legal, bro! No slave labor involved. The fact is, Americans largely don't want to do these jobs. Why would my uncle go to the trouble of getting these Mexicans if he could just hire locally?
I understand your sentiment, and I used to feel the same way. But the realities of Capitalism simply don't work that way. The world is not a just or fair place, as it is currently managed and configured. That pisses me off too, but fighting reality is a losing battle.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
illegal immigrants are modern slaves. Got it.
Yeah, they sort of are. But I am not talking about illegal immigrants. The Mexicans my uncle hires come here legally.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
> He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts.
Mexican culture has a long history of alcohol consumption, so I'm not sure if that one is quite accurate.
Are you saying you know more about my uncles employees than he does? I'm not sure how that could be the case. I'm just telling you what he told me when I asked.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970
The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.
Be nice. The OP is NOT wrong... even if it is a very weird thing to say and has no logical use. ;)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.
Maybe I've misunderstood the real process of the American budget, but it was my impression that the White House writes a budget and then submits it to Congress, where it is read, debated, and possibly modified and then eventually sent back to the White House for signing.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?
If the Trump administration wrote the budget, shouldn't they get both the credit and the blame for the budget?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm aware of all this, but the vast majority of those people in prison aren't just innocent bystanders that did nothing wrong. You don't just get "declared" a felon...you have to do something to earn that title. I don't agree with all the U.S. policies regarding jails, but the people that are in there are in there for a reason.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus.
Those Tariffs that you Trump-lovers adore so well are costing us money, not least because Trump is having to spend our money to bail out the immediate victims. Of course, all of us are long-term victims, but Trump is getting himself out of debt by staying at his resort every weekend so it's all gravy to him.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You say that like he isn't the head of a party that for another month is in full control of congress.
What the fuck is your point? Those people are all dead. No living Americans have ever legally owned slaves, nor did their parents. I highly doubt that anyone alive today even had a grandparent that owned a slave.
You want to act all modern? How about you drop the blood-debt bullshit, fuck face.
Americans won't do it, at the price he's willing to pay, because people actually have to support the standard of living where they live. The temporary Mexicans don't have as a hard of a time with it; they get to go back home and take the bulk of their money with them.
The market won't bear higher prices to pay Americans a living wage picking strawberries or whatever, because if one producer does it, all of his competition has to as well. Catch 22.
Either your understanding is wrong or mine is.
Congress allocates the money, the President spends the money.
Apparently, it is more complex than that: https://www.nationalpriorities...
TL;DR, The President submits a Budget Request. This budget request is then used by Congress when deciding an actual budget. Again, Congress is still to blame.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
My instant reply to you is that the fucking President doesn't have the authority to implement a tariff. That is purely the job of Congress... but
"Raising taxes and tariffs is usually Congress’s job. But on Thursday, President Donald Trump officially raised tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread opposition from Republicans in Congress — and it was completely in his right to do so.
Trump signed an executive order calling on the Commerce Department to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. His reason: Foreign countries’ current trade practices with the United States are a threat to national security.
By law, that’s enough of a reason to bypass Congress altogether."
Taken from: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/1...
And now I am fucked up. Where is the fucking Constitution? Why is it being abrogated and derogated constantly? Is the Rule of Law a quaint notion from a simpler time? WTF is going on?
that you Trump-lovers adore
Ummm.... why are you calling me a Trump lover? Congress is responsible for tariffs. I was not aware that the Constitution had been subverted in that way. I place the blame where it belongs, not where I wish it would be.
Can you explain something to me please? Why do so many people, apparently including you, make assumptions where there is no reason to do so? What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection. We are supposed to be dealing with reality, not rewriting reality to satisfy our inner desires. I mean, if you twist words, you could say I was defending Trump, but what I was really doing is impeaching Congress... and yet you still chose to see that as defending Trump and assuming I am a Trump lover. WTF? Where is the logic in that?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I should know better than to reply to Anonymous Coward... but, Trump is not in full control. He may be the most important person in the party, he may have absurd levels of influence, but he is NOT in control and individual members of Congress are absolutely required to vote their conscience, not along party lines. Yeah, I know it doesn't always work like that and the issues are even more complex than what I have described, and yet, what I have said is still true.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection.
It's stuff he's responsible for. He pushed for it, he got it. Now you want to give him a free pass for it. Making excuses for him when they're unwarranted makes you a Trump lover. Hope this map is clear enough for you to find your asshole.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Making excuses for him when they're unwarranted makes you a Trump lover.
On the bright side, now I know how it works. On the dark side, I have found that you are an idiot.
What part of "Congress is responsible for tariffs" do you NOT understand? I understand HOW you could think that the idea of Congress being responsible for tariffs equates to defending Trump, but all that does is paint you as an idiot.
Hope this map is clear enough for you to find your asshole.
Ah. An idiot AND a jackass. Nice combo.
I have seen you around for years and I have never detected that you were so ignorant, so I rarely paid any attention to the insults others have thrown your way. You have now demonstrated that you are capable of intentionally being an idiot and I will discount anything further that you have to say.
I honestly never expected you to be so short sighted that once you made an inaccurate judgement, that you would stick with it in the face of evidence to the contrary. Why? Do you really hate Trump THAT much to see Trump lovers everywhere?
Surprisingly, I am disgusted by your behavior, but I do hope to see better/smarter behavior from you in the future. Good luck.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I can and most certainly will, if they're still trying to do it. By now, everyone in America knows our shitty past, so if you STILL wanna be racist, reinstall slavery, and long "for the good old days" you're doing it willfully, because you believe it to be good for you and I'll shit on any motherfucker taking that stance. Sorry, not sorry.
I live in rural Tennessee. I hear that same lazy American shit all the time. It's their excuse that sounds good to others, to the news people, and to the politicians. Bottom line: He doesn't want to pay for Americans. Period, sorry, international market competition be damned. The market isn't his problem to solve, those rupublicunts he keeps voting for made those policies and it's not gonna be fixed by anyone but them, so it's unlikely to be fixed. There's a reason "Americans just aren't desperate enough", we stopped letting greedy cheapskates like your uncle fuck us over.
You are changing the subject. GP was talking about the dollars collected from the rich, not the rates they pay. When someone like Buffet pays 13% or whatever on $1 billion, or $130 million, that's orders of magnitude more that his secretary pays at 30% or whatever her rate is.
GP's point is accurate. The top few percent pay over half of all taxes collected by total dollar value, even though the rate may be lower due to various incentives built into the tax code. Whether that's fair is a different discussion, but the rich pay the same rate their secretaries do on the first $X they earn in regular income up to the secretaries' total income.
You can dismiss other people's testimony all you want and all that will do is make you ignorant. You have zero evidence about American workers who show up to a farm early in the morning because you don't operate a farm. You wave away the international produce market as if the international market will prefer high priced American produce over the good enough low priced developing world produce. There is a real cost to the local workforce when the high priced American workforce has to compete with the good enough low priced work force that exists in the rest of the world.
Go do it. Record a video of your meetings and post it online for all to see. Tell me where you are so that I can do the same, we can both record meetings with your alleged Republican racists in the towns of your area.
It's actually very easy not to go to jail. Nobody is forcing people to commit felony crimes. You'd have to allege some kind of government conspiracy to sweep up innocent people off the streets and find them guilty of a felony all for the intended purpose of profiting from the labor of imprisoned felons.
I live in rural Tennessee. I hear that same lazy American shit all the time. It's their excuse that sounds good to others, to the news people, and to the politicians. Bottom line: He doesn't want to pay for Americans. Period, sorry, international market competition be damned. The market isn't his problem to solve, those rupublicunts he keeps voting for made those policies and it's not gonna be fixed by anyone but them, so it's unlikely to be fixed. There's a reason "Americans just aren't desperate enough", we stopped letting greedy cheapskates like your uncle fuck us over.
Oh look, another one who didn't absorb this part: "He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
My uncle did hire Americans. The people who applied for the jobs proved unable or unwilling to show up to work on time and in a condition to do hours of physical labor. I only know what he told me, and I don't know what else to tell you.
As the other AC told you, ignoring the market conditions in which you operate your business is not a way run a successful business. My uncle cannot just say, "Fuck the market, I'm going to pay my people $30 an hour because it's the right thing to do." He runs a business, not a charity. And he would not run his business long if he ignored his revenue relative to his costs. The market is not his problem to solve, but it is his to contend with.
Where I agree is the he continues to vote for this crap. I love my uncle, but we do not agree on political matters. He voted for Trump, and I think Trump is a dangerous ignoramus. Rural America is kinda like that though; voting for Republicans. I did not write my initial post to defend Republican voting. I was just trying to illustrate that the matter is not as simple as, "Pay a decent wage and plenty of Americans will do these jobs." I used to think that too, but after talking with someone with first-hand knowledge of the subject I now see that it just isn't that straightforward.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
ummmm no he really didnt reduce the national debt......
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Keep backing Trump you fucking genius.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
"The market is not his problem to solve, but it is his to contend with."
Yup. Our trade and immigration laws have created a race to the bottom, as a matter of public policy. You're right, your uncle is running a business. He has no choice, he must try to win the race to the bottom.
But that doesn't really make his employment discrimination against Americans any less scummy, you know? People are right to be angry. And what a sleazebag - slandering the mass of his countrymen as lazy! Because he won't pay a living wage, so he can hire only convicts and hobos.
President Trump SAYS he wants to improve the immigration and trade policies that have wrecked our economy. Now sure, maybe he is lying, or maybe he won't be able to get the changes through Congress, or maybe the changes will be ineffective. Sure.
But the alternative is the Democrat and Republican Establishment. Who SAY they want MORE OF THE SAME policies that have been an absolute disaster for American workers.
pointing out that obama did not in fact reduce the national debt is not backing trump lol how stupid are you anti trump people
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same