No, but I've always wondered what kind of stuff you have to be on to actually swallow the "easy answers" they're peddling.
Easy? You mean like "more stimulus! raise the debt ceiling! more stimulus! raise the debt ceiling! more stimulus!". I'm rather amazed people swallow _that_ "easy answer" tripe considering our current mess of an economy.
Both health care and SS are paid for with taxes that aren't technically from the Federal Income Tax. If you cut them, then you should cut the taxes for them as well.
Orrrrr we could do away with this assinine concept of "separate" taxes and just merge everything into one single income tax rather than applying multiple separate taxes to income "cell phone provider style". Lets face it...its inlays vs outlays. My income is taxed by some percentage and the government spends some amount of money. How those things are proportioned by name or division is irrelevant.
Social Security is very nearly solvent, it has sufficient dedicated revenues to operate at full budget in the near term
Umm, and those "revenues" are costing the country/taxpayers 700+ billion a year, even higher than the military you bring up. So what makes the social security spending "solvent"? The fact it's split off into a separate tax? If we made military spending a separate tax equivalent to OASI, we'd have a surplus in military spending! (by your definition solvent). I'm getting very fed up with this view that Social Security is somehow not an "expense" or not part of the "budget" simply because the taxes for it are distinct from the income tax.
The stimulus didn't fail. The economy was in free fall, whereas now it's just stagnant... At any rate, cutting taxes for the wealthy hasn't exactly been working out so well.
*blink* You got upvoted to a 5 with this rubbish? The _exact_ same argument you used to say the stimulus worked is the same argument for the tax cuts "working". It's a hell of alot easier to claim a "tiger-repellant rock" (http://economics.about.com/b/2009/04/03/tiger-repelling-rocks-and-stimulus-packages.htm) than to actually show actual causation. There is _nothing_ you can do to prove that we'd be any worse off right now without a stimulus. Though I can tell you for a _fact_ we wouldn't be having a debt crisis right now with several trillion more in our coffers.
And he also ensured that our future would forever be saddled with debt. Which makes me laugh when I read the end of your original post:
I find it funny that you attribute tax cutting to "increasing the debt" instead of holding liable those who are spending the money. Tax cuts didn't ensure that our future would forever be saddled with debt. Bailouts + "stimulus" did.
Well based off this site (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8gWSvE-mDicJ:www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question79701.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=encrypted.google.com), you'd need at least 3158 just to hit every major metro area. And that doesn't count intercepted missiles, launch failures, duds, or silos sabotaged or destroyed prior to launch. I'd say 5k is a good number. I wouldn't go any lower than 4k personally.
Well that's not fair, especially when you're talking about idealized and realistic solutions as well (such as breaking up the country). A push for more state's rights and less federal government is very achievable, if only in small steps at a time. Nothing is going to happen overnight, but taking strides to reduce federal overreach is a noble and achievable goal.
All policy is made by the Federal government, so our national legislators constantly bicker about things like gay marriage instead of just letting the states deal with that on their own.
I entirely agree -- it's a waste of time and money. Also, far more time is spent "politicking" instead of passing sensible legislation. We're seeing that now with the debt ceiling talks (from both sides). Rather than compromise on something sensible, they're playing political gamesmanship trying to garner votes for the next election.
Do you think Germany, Netherlands, Italy, UK, and Spain could ever come to an agreement on an issue like that?
Doubtful, which is probably why the European Union doesn't try to pass such a ridiculous law.
Similarly, I'd be much more in favor of social programs in the USA being implemented at the state level,
I'm on board with that.
The way it is now, people simply move around too much for there to be any loyalty to a certain state.
Really? Everyone I've spoke to always speaks to the contrary. They say people are almost incapable of moving. It's the whole argument against the "state's rights" activists, where they claim people are tied to their job/region and lack the money/mobility to travel elsewhere.
Regardless, I simply see no need for separate countries, especially since 5 federal programs/5 standing armies/5 different tax laws/etc/etc quickly gets even more complicated than the mess we have now. Not to mention if we split the south off into a separate country, it would probably start a damn holy war against the rest of newly split America. The last thing we need is more theocracies.
and that corporations will rape and pilage when allowed
Pish, when you can prove to me that politicians won't "rape and pillage when allowed", perhaps I'll agree with you. At least the corporations don't have a standing army and a host of tax collectors.
That said, concur with your call for regulation, when required (typically for safety reasons, such as the FDA). But the govt has no business telling me what light bulbs to purchase. I guess that's my whole issue as a libertarian -- I look around and see a substantial overreach of government. They have their hands into everything. Yet everyone else seems to think we're living in some kind of capitalist paradise. And that I just don't understand.
You bring up healthcare -- I can think of no heavier regulated market in our society. And yet people call for more government? And blame the free market? Free? I'm "free" to choose from like 2 pre-selected companies my employer chose for me (that came only from this state and not from others). Then I pay a bunch of "negotiated prices" -- there is absolutely no option to "shop around" and find cheaper alternatives. I can't compare prices, bargain shop, use coupon codes, _nothing_. I don't even get to see a price quote ahead of time. I simply pay whatever they tell me to, and that's that. I can think of nothing less capitalistic than that. It's the exact opposite of competition/free-market.
All you have to do is break the country up into a handful of smaller nations. Problem solved.
Yes, we can even call them "states";P I mean, seriously -- that's the entire point of states, to have semi-autonomous more efficient regions of governance (preferably where local law reflects local interests). The national portion is to cover areas where those states bicker (or things like shared defense).
an be solved probably by simply not bailing out these countries when their debt grows too large.
Where I would agree with you, it would never happen (for the same reason they wouldn't let the US banks go under). Sadly, "too big to fail" is too widely established a concept. I might also add "simply not bailing out these countries when their debt grows too large" is a bit of an ironic stance from someone pushing social programs;P
Hong Kong? Early United States?
To some extent, some of the countries listed here:
http://www.heritage.org/index/
You have to understand that Libertarianism (much like every other political ideology) is a sliding scale that goes from "pure Anarchy" to "i'd be happy with state socialism, just stay away from federal law". In fact, I'd argue most libertarians are the latter -- the vast majority of what they complain is federal law (and not local things like roads and police and fire departments). It's about "small purpose-driven government", not "no government, fuck everybody".
The society you live in uses mandatory taxation as a way of paying for itself
You are a rational person, which I respect. I would like to provide a rational argument as to why libertarians have come to think this way ("Tax == theft"). Namely, it is because what taxes used to be is not what they are today. At our founding and sometime after, the government was small, federal powers limited, and taxes served the purpose you spoke of -- namely, covering the expense of societal services.
Over time, and especially today, they have changed to be literally wealth redistribution. A good chunk of all our taxes don't pay for _any_ service. They are simply redistributed to people who have less (important note here: people who have less are not "homeless & destitute & on the verge of crime", which people like to pitch as the alternative to giving them free money. They are instead people who have one TV instead of two). Once this became the purpose of taxes, it is far easier to perceive it as theft, as the money does not grant society as a whole any new service -- it instead merely becomes handouts.
The problem is that the government has become utterly corrupt in the past few decades.
There's many counters to that argument. One could say the government was always corrupt and it's just now coming out into the open. One could say all big government eventually becomes corrupt (history certainly speaks towards this). One could even say there's far more avenues of "political money" now to take advantage of then in the past (a much more corporate-tied government). Regardless of the reason for said corruption, the point is that there is and always will be corruption. Knowing that, I have more faith in myself that the scruples of a stranger.
Lots of other countries provide for their senior citizens, and they don't have all the problems we do.
Macro-economic comparisons like that are hardly fair, nor are they typically such simple "single cause" equations. For instance, just to name one uniquely American facet of the problem is poor exercise and bad dieting w/ respect to healthcare. Practically every other first world nation out there has far more active and healthy cultures, yet such considerations are almost never taken into account when comparing the health care expense of the US with another country.
Secondly, very few countries are as large as the US. Size increases complexity almost exponentially. Germany is probably the most populous nation out there with decent social programs and they are 25% the size of the population of the US. Now this may be an unfair request, but show me a nation as large as us without similar problems.
Finally, I don't even necessarily agree that other countries don't have similar problems. The PIIGS of Europe are fighting with debt woes for instance. Others can only pull off such a "social paradise" by taxing the populace very heavily, something that would simply never fly here. People want a certain standard of living (multiple TVs, etc) that will be impacted by a ~40-50% tax rate.
Or do you start driving desired behavior prior to reaching that tipping point?
The latter is far and away cheaper in the long run. But you apparently don't want to think of the world you're leaving to your children.
The world does not work that way. Simply getting more people to buy something does not automatically advance the technology at a faster rate. In addition, it may have unforeseen consequences that work against you. As some have stated in this thread (as a for-instance), have you calculated the ecological cost of "cars driving to CFL light bulb disposal locations" when seeing the total picture? Or the added complexity and manufacturing requirements of the CFL and impacts of the factories producing those bulbs?
But all that aside, its foolish to attempt to "drive desired behavior" towards a solution that simply doesn't meet what people want. It makes far more sense to spend money to actually research better tech that accomplishes the task. For instance, better "instant-on" tech for CFLs that isn't a flat-out lie would certainly make me want them more.
Finally, as far as "total picture" goes, there are _far_ more impactful targets to go after than light bulbs. If you look at my monthly energy bill, a _very_ small portion comes from light bulbs (even incandescent). Why not go after better home build quality (insulation, windows, etc) or better HVAC systems (SEER ratings)? These are things that would truly be 100% transparent to a home owner vs the light bulb issue where there are a plethora of things that make the CFL experience distinctly different from the incandescent. The impact would also be far more substantial.
So ultimately, I have no problem with incentiving green tech, but I have more of a problem with taxing non-green tech into oblivion (especially when said green tech simply doesn't measure up as a replacement). Bang for buck as well as lifestyle impact also matters greatly.
And in a democracy, the government *is* the people, so you have people (or at least the majority of them) collectively deciding how to direct their collective behavior.
The "majority" of people believe alot of stupid things. I have no idea what your take on religion is, but a vast majority of the country is religious -- how would you feel about your tax dollars being used to coerce you and others into going to church? Or teaching religion in schools? The whole reason the founding fathers put strict limits on government when they founded this country was because they recognized the slippery slope this led to.
If not taxes, then what else should a country use to influence people's behavior in order to make defense and infrastructure more feasible?
On a related note, there's a distinct and important difference between taxing something and offering a tax credit/deduction to though who use something. The former _forces_ the product to be more expensive. The latter provides incentive by making something else cheaper. Though similar, these have dramatically different effects on the market.
t's typical of the GOP, remember around 2004 when they were worried about same sex marriage and abortion to the exclusion of actual serious issues like the budget, the two wars we were in and the various other problems we were dealing with at that point?
Or in 2009-2010, when they were worried about making sure "everyone has healthcare" when we were fighting record unemployment, an impending budget crisis, and a plummeting housing market? Oh wait, that wasn't the GOP.
I imagine it's because, before SS was enacted, people didn't do such a great job of saving for their own retirement
Heh, I would argue the government isn't doing a much better job. Investing in shitty low-risk investments that don't beat inflation and then borrowing against that money to go on a spending spree is something I can do myself.
You're being illogical.
Reducing the amount of electricity we use reduces the amount of coal they burn.
So using devices, such as CFLs that use less electricity will cause less coal to be burned (thus releasing less mercury in the environment).
Don't accuse others of being illogical when you're moving the goalposts yourself. If the pollution of the coal plants is the problem, fix that -- don't supplement a bad idea with another questionable one. By the same logic, I could say that if we replaced all our coal plants with nuclear, CFLs are bad because of mercury and we should switch back to incandescents.
But what's by far the largest budget item? The military.
Actually, by far the largest budget item is entitlement programs. Unless you're one of those people that thinks Mandatory Spending somehow exists _outside_ of "normal" spending, which is a convenient way of pretending the expense doesn't exist.
The 'most efficient' at the task at hand is what is important, rather than the energy used. The time saved by driving versus horseback, by not washing dishes or clothes by hand also factor into that 'efficiency' since i can do multiple things at once that you can't doing them by hand.
I fail to see your argument.
LED TVs are more energy efficient than Plasma -- do we ban plasma TVs? Civics are more energy efficient than practically every sports car out there -- do we ban sports cars? Flywheels are more efficient than batteries -- do we ban batteries? Nuclear power is more efficient than solar -- do we ban solar power?
Simply saying that something is an exact replacement and is better in every single way is ludicrous, especially considering the very large group of people that still want these things. Clearly they have _some_ purpose or value, or people wouldn't want them. Why do you give a damn why people want them? Some say they like the warmth(heat), some prefer the color, some don't want to deal with mercury, some have extreme temperatures to deal with -- whatever the concern, incandescents have a purpose -- if there was a perfect replacement, they would obsolete themselves (much as the horse and buggy has, or the water bucket to wash clothes). Ask yourself why the horse-and-buggy or water bucket didn't have to be explicitly banned to fall into obsolescence whereas the incandescent bulb for some reason does...
I'm an entirely different animal. I have no political objectives. I have only financial objectives, and the Tea Party is f_cking with the national economy. I'm not an extremist, with the left or the right,
What you claim and what you preach are not the same. You come out attacking Republicans, highlighting in particular two morons (Palin/Bachman) who you attack with some zeal, and as far as I can tell attribute no ills to the other side.
You don't think Obama was "f_cking with the national economy" or indirectly attacking your benefits by wasting 1+ trillion dollars on ineffective stimulus? We wouldn't even have a debt ceiling problem atm if not for all that wasteful spending. Yet you've chosen your camp.
There's a way out, if Obama has the nerve. Leave the limit as it is and then pick and choose which bills get paid and which programs get funded. I believe he has sole authority to do this. If he follows through the TeaPublicans will bitch, cry and moan as always but they'll agree to raise the limit.
You have a very strange view of the problem. Democrats care more about raising the limit than Republicans. Without raising taxes, you could axe ALL discretionary spending and we'd still be short. Aka, his ability to "pick and choose what gets funded" (even if he legally has that ability, which I'm pretty sure he doesn't) would be limited to "everything" + some chunk of Mandatory spending (social security/medicare)
bailout baby bailout! (2008-present)... So if the libertarian/republican trickle down "Its the gubment!" theory held true
You don't think giving a metric %^%$ton of taxpayer dollars to a bunch of corporations isn't the "gubment" fucking things up?
hell in just the last 10 years with EVER lowering taxes on the top 5% we've lost 21,000 FACTORIES even as the politicians tripped over themselves to give ever larger tax cuts to the top 5%, oh and the middle class?
You're cherry picking. By the same vein, I could say Obama claimed spending 1+ trillion dollars in "stimulus" packages was supposed to reduce unemployment and did not. Correlation != Causation. The economy doesn't exist in some kind of bubble where you can attribute everything to a single cause.
When you can externalize all your risk, your apparent cost per kilowatt goes way down. Ask the Japanese what their cost per kilowatt, including the cost of the Fukushima meltdowns is.
Oh really? If you want to make that comparison, then compare the cost of solar/wind/whatever-your-choice-alternate 30 years ago to the cost per kilowatt of Fukushima. Then maybe you'd have something that is even remotely fair. Comparing 30 year old tech to cutting-edge is assinine and not even worthy of debate.
The claim that the amount of CO2 being produced by humans alone will in the near-term will reach a tipping point that will cause out of control and unrecoverable global warming and in result cause catastrophic damage, bordering on an extinction event. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the level of "seriousness" that I hear being dictated. (the emphasis is mine of course based on the specific facets that are of most importance in proving)
The greenhouse effect?...Prove anthropogenic greenhouse effect invalid?... Prove invalid the conclusion that the net effect of anthropogenic greenhouse effect is heating?... Prove invalid the concept of computer models?
And I guess that's my issue...you (like most AGW supporters) pick the scientific softballs that most everyone agrees with. These models aren't being used to prove such simple scientific truths They're being used to prove (just to rehash a bit...) that the degree of greenhouse effect being caused by a single gas (CO2) by a single source (humans) will dwarf all other factors and cause a major catastrophe in the very near future. I can accept the science behind the greenhouse effect. I get it. It's the slippery slope that leads from "basic scientific principle" to "global killer" that I question.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy? You mean like "more stimulus! raise the debt ceiling! more stimulus! raise the debt ceiling! more stimulus!". I'm rather amazed people swallow _that_ "easy answer" tripe considering our current mess of an economy.
Orrrrr we could do away with this assinine concept of "separate" taxes and just merge everything into one single income tax rather than applying multiple separate taxes to income "cell phone provider style". Lets face it...its inlays vs outlays. My income is taxed by some percentage and the government spends some amount of money. How those things are proportioned by name or division is irrelevant.
Umm, and those "revenues" are costing the country/taxpayers 700+ billion a year, even higher than the military you bring up. So what makes the social security spending "solvent"? The fact it's split off into a separate tax? If we made military spending a separate tax equivalent to OASI, we'd have a surplus in military spending! (by your definition solvent). I'm getting very fed up with this view that Social Security is somehow not an "expense" or not part of the "budget" simply because the taxes for it are distinct from the income tax.
*blink* You got upvoted to a 5 with this rubbish? The _exact_ same argument you used to say the stimulus worked is the same argument for the tax cuts "working". It's a hell of alot easier to claim a "tiger-repellant rock" (http://economics.about.com/b/2009/04/03/tiger-repelling-rocks-and-stimulus-packages.htm) than to actually show actual causation. There is _nothing_ you can do to prove that we'd be any worse off right now without a stimulus. Though I can tell you for a _fact_ we wouldn't be having a debt crisis right now with several trillion more in our coffers.
I find it funny that you attribute tax cutting to "increasing the debt" instead of holding liable those who are spending the money . Tax cuts didn't ensure that our future would forever be saddled with debt. Bailouts + "stimulus" did.
Well based off this site (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8gWSvE-mDicJ:www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question79701.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=encrypted.google.com), you'd need at least 3158 just to hit every major metro area. And that doesn't count intercepted missiles, launch failures, duds, or silos sabotaged or destroyed prior to launch. I'd say 5k is a good number. I wouldn't go any lower than 4k personally.
Well that's not fair, especially when you're talking about idealized and realistic solutions as well (such as breaking up the country). A push for more state's rights and less federal government is very achievable, if only in small steps at a time. Nothing is going to happen overnight, but taking strides to reduce federal overreach is a noble and achievable goal.
I entirely agree -- it's a waste of time and money. Also, far more time is spent "politicking" instead of passing sensible legislation. We're seeing that now with the debt ceiling talks (from both sides). Rather than compromise on something sensible, they're playing political gamesmanship trying to garner votes for the next election.
Doubtful, which is probably why the European Union doesn't try to pass such a ridiculous law.
I'm on board with that.
Really? Everyone I've spoke to always speaks to the contrary. They say people are almost incapable of moving. It's the whole argument against the "state's rights" activists, where they claim people are tied to their job/region and lack the money/mobility to travel elsewhere. Regardless, I simply see no need for separate countries, especially since 5 federal programs/5 standing armies/5 different tax laws/etc/etc quickly gets even more complicated than the mess we have now. Not to mention if we split the south off into a separate country, it would probably start a damn holy war against the rest of newly split America. The last thing we need is more theocracies.
Pish, when you can prove to me that politicians won't "rape and pillage when allowed", perhaps I'll agree with you. At least the corporations don't have a standing army and a host of tax collectors. That said, concur with your call for regulation, when required (typically for safety reasons, such as the FDA). But the govt has no business telling me what light bulbs to purchase. I guess that's my whole issue as a libertarian -- I look around and see a substantial overreach of government. They have their hands into everything. Yet everyone else seems to think we're living in some kind of capitalist paradise. And that I just don't understand.
You bring up healthcare -- I can think of no heavier regulated market in our society. And yet people call for more government? And blame the free market? Free? I'm "free" to choose from like 2 pre-selected companies my employer chose for me (that came only from this state and not from others). Then I pay a bunch of "negotiated prices" -- there is absolutely no option to "shop around" and find cheaper alternatives. I can't compare prices, bargain shop, use coupon codes, _nothing_. I don't even get to see a price quote ahead of time. I simply pay whatever they tell me to, and that's that. I can think of nothing less capitalistic than that. It's the exact opposite of competition/free-market.
Yes, we can even call them "states" ;P I mean, seriously -- that's the entire point of states, to have semi-autonomous more efficient regions of governance (preferably where local law reflects local interests). The national portion is to cover areas where those states bicker (or things like shared defense).
Where I would agree with you, it would never happen (for the same reason they wouldn't let the US banks go under). Sadly, "too big to fail" is too widely established a concept. I might also add "simply not bailing out these countries when their debt grows too large" is a bit of an ironic stance from someone pushing social programs ;P
Hong Kong? Early United States? To some extent, some of the countries listed here: http://www.heritage.org/index/ You have to understand that Libertarianism (much like every other political ideology) is a sliding scale that goes from "pure Anarchy" to "i'd be happy with state socialism, just stay away from federal law". In fact, I'd argue most libertarians are the latter -- the vast majority of what they complain is federal law (and not local things like roads and police and fire departments). It's about "small purpose-driven government", not "no government, fuck everybody".
You are a rational person, which I respect. I would like to provide a rational argument as to why libertarians have come to think this way ("Tax == theft"). Namely, it is because what taxes used to be is not what they are today. At our founding and sometime after, the government was small, federal powers limited, and taxes served the purpose you spoke of -- namely, covering the expense of societal services.
Over time, and especially today, they have changed to be literally wealth redistribution. A good chunk of all our taxes don't pay for _any_ service. They are simply redistributed to people who have less (important note here: people who have less are not "homeless & destitute & on the verge of crime", which people like to pitch as the alternative to giving them free money. They are instead people who have one TV instead of two). Once this became the purpose of taxes, it is far easier to perceive it as theft, as the money does not grant society as a whole any new service -- it instead merely becomes handouts.
There's many counters to that argument. One could say the government was always corrupt and it's just now coming out into the open. One could say all big government eventually becomes corrupt (history certainly speaks towards this). One could even say there's far more avenues of "political money" now to take advantage of then in the past (a much more corporate-tied government). Regardless of the reason for said corruption, the point is that there is and always will be corruption. Knowing that, I have more faith in myself that the scruples of a stranger.
Macro-economic comparisons like that are hardly fair, nor are they typically such simple "single cause" equations. For instance, just to name one uniquely American facet of the problem is poor exercise and bad dieting w/ respect to healthcare. Practically every other first world nation out there has far more active and healthy cultures, yet such considerations are almost never taken into account when comparing the health care expense of the US with another country.
Secondly, very few countries are as large as the US. Size increases complexity almost exponentially. Germany is probably the most populous nation out there with decent social programs and they are 25% the size of the population of the US. Now this may be an unfair request, but show me a nation as large as us without similar problems.
Finally, I don't even necessarily agree that other countries don't have similar problems. The PIIGS of Europe are fighting with debt woes for instance. Others can only pull off such a "social paradise" by taxing the populace very heavily, something that would simply never fly here. People want a certain standard of living (multiple TVs, etc) that will be impacted by a ~40-50% tax rate.
The world does not work that way. Simply getting more people to buy something does not automatically advance the technology at a faster rate. In addition, it may have unforeseen consequences that work against you. As some have stated in this thread (as a for-instance), have you calculated the ecological cost of "cars driving to CFL light bulb disposal locations" when seeing the total picture? Or the added complexity and manufacturing requirements of the CFL and impacts of the factories producing those bulbs?
But all that aside, its foolish to attempt to "drive desired behavior" towards a solution that simply doesn't meet what people want. It makes far more sense to spend money to actually research better tech that accomplishes the task. For instance, better "instant-on" tech for CFLs that isn't a flat-out lie would certainly make me want them more.
Finally, as far as "total picture" goes, there are _far_ more impactful targets to go after than light bulbs. If you look at my monthly energy bill, a _very_ small portion comes from light bulbs (even incandescent). Why not go after better home build quality (insulation, windows, etc) or better HVAC systems (SEER ratings)? These are things that would truly be 100% transparent to a home owner vs the light bulb issue where there are a plethora of things that make the CFL experience distinctly different from the incandescent. The impact would also be far more substantial.
So ultimately, I have no problem with incentiving green tech, but I have more of a problem with taxing non-green tech into oblivion (especially when said green tech simply doesn't measure up as a replacement). Bang for buck as well as lifestyle impact also matters greatly.
The "majority" of people believe alot of stupid things. I have no idea what your take on religion is, but a vast majority of the country is religious -- how would you feel about your tax dollars being used to coerce you and others into going to church? Or teaching religion in schools? The whole reason the founding fathers put strict limits on government when they founded this country was because they recognized the slippery slope this led to.
On a related note, there's a distinct and important difference between taxing something and offering a tax credit/deduction to though who use something. The former _forces_ the product to be more expensive. The latter provides incentive by making something else cheaper. Though similar, these have dramatically different effects on the market.
Or in 2009-2010, when they were worried about making sure "everyone has healthcare" when we were fighting record unemployment, an impending budget crisis, and a plummeting housing market? Oh wait, that wasn't the GOP.
Heh, I would argue the government isn't doing a much better job. Investing in shitty low-risk investments that don't beat inflation and then borrowing against that money to go on a spending spree is something I can do myself.
Don't accuse others of being illogical when you're moving the goalposts yourself. If the pollution of the coal plants is the problem, fix that -- don't supplement a bad idea with another questionable one. By the same logic, I could say that if we replaced all our coal plants with nuclear, CFLs are bad because of mercury and we should switch back to incandescents.
Actually, by far the largest budget item is entitlement programs. Unless you're one of those people that thinks Mandatory Spending somehow exists _outside_ of "normal" spending, which is a convenient way of pretending the expense doesn't exist.
I fail to see your argument. LED TVs are more energy efficient than Plasma -- do we ban plasma TVs? Civics are more energy efficient than practically every sports car out there -- do we ban sports cars? Flywheels are more efficient than batteries -- do we ban batteries? Nuclear power is more efficient than solar -- do we ban solar power? Simply saying that something is an exact replacement and is better in every single way is ludicrous, especially considering the very large group of people that still want these things. Clearly they have _some_ purpose or value, or people wouldn't want them. Why do you give a damn why people want them? Some say they like the warmth(heat), some prefer the color, some don't want to deal with mercury, some have extreme temperatures to deal with -- whatever the concern, incandescents have a purpose -- if there was a perfect replacement, they would obsolete themselves (much as the horse and buggy has, or the water bucket to wash clothes). Ask yourself why the horse-and-buggy or water bucket didn't have to be explicitly banned to fall into obsolescence whereas the incandescent bulb for some reason does...
What you claim and what you preach are not the same. You come out attacking Republicans, highlighting in particular two morons (Palin/Bachman) who you attack with some zeal, and as far as I can tell attribute no ills to the other side.
You don't think Obama was "f_cking with the national economy" or indirectly attacking your benefits by wasting 1+ trillion dollars on ineffective stimulus? We wouldn't even have a debt ceiling problem atm if not for all that wasteful spending. Yet you've chosen your camp.
You have a very strange view of the problem. Democrats care more about raising the limit than Republicans. Without raising taxes, you could axe ALL discretionary spending and we'd still be short. Aka, his ability to "pick and choose what gets funded" (even if he legally has that ability, which I'm pretty sure he doesn't) would be limited to "everything" + some chunk of Mandatory spending (social security/medicare)
You don't think giving a metric %^%$ton of taxpayer dollars to a bunch of corporations isn't the "gubment" fucking things up?
You're cherry picking. By the same vein, I could say Obama claimed spending 1+ trillion dollars in "stimulus" packages was supposed to reduce unemployment and did not. Correlation != Causation. The economy doesn't exist in some kind of bubble where you can attribute everything to a single cause.
Oh really? If you want to make that comparison, then compare the cost of solar/wind/whatever-your-choice-alternate 30 years ago to the cost per kilowatt of Fukushima. Then maybe you'd have something that is even remotely fair. Comparing 30 year old tech to cutting-edge is assinine and not even worthy of debate.
The claim that the amount of CO2 being produced by humans alone will in the near-term will reach a tipping point that will cause out of control and unrecoverable global warming and in result cause catastrophic damage, bordering on an extinction event. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the level of "seriousness" that I hear being dictated. (the emphasis is mine of course based on the specific facets that are of most importance in proving)
And I guess that's my issue...you (like most AGW supporters) pick the scientific softballs that most everyone agrees with. These models aren't being used to prove such simple scientific truths They're being used to prove (just to rehash a bit...) that the degree of greenhouse effect being caused by a single gas (CO2) by a single source (humans) will dwarf all other factors and cause a major catastrophe in the very near future. I can accept the science behind the greenhouse effect. I get it. It's the slippery slope that leads from "basic scientific principle" to "global killer" that I question.