What on earth makes you think they don't understand it though?
Every time I see a "Tea Party" spokesperson talk about economic or government issues they tend to be 100% wrong. Usually they're too caught up in attacking Obama for every conceivable evil to be able to coherently put forth a single intelligent idea.
The fact that a debt ceiling deal was reached shows that they put their ideological concerns aside. It's obvious they were just going for the best bargain they could get with the power they had. That IS realpolitik.
That's not the way I remember it. They tried to scupper the deal and lost because they didn't have the power they thought they had.
I don't think you recognise the point, and that's not a Godwin. In a Godwin he calls you a Nazi for some reason. The point is clear and salient, one issue voters risk ignoring bigger travesties for the sake of their one issue, and that is why some people resent them.
Of course, he still did move their production overseas and apparent it is kept there because of the benefits of employing wage slaves who can be roused out their beds at midnight and forced to work 18 hour shifts to meet arbitrary corporate deadlines.
Why would they? The libertarian got 1% of the vote. Their actual opponent got close to 50%, the bigger prize is in prying away voters from the opposition that matters.
I think they're probably about as good as.38 against a tank.
I'm not sure if the American revolutionary idea of an armed militia overthrowing an oppressive government has much basis in reality now, if it ever did. The American Revolution was only possible because Britain was engaged in a much more important war close to home. More importantly, the last time that I checked the U.S. spent more on it's military than every other nation combined. A successful revolution against the government is going to have to involve inciting a substantial part of that military to defect to the revolutionary side. Shooting at them is not going to achieve that aim.
Even the article above indicates this isn't really "Republicans standing up for the little guy", it's "Republicans sticking it to Hollywood for supporting the Democrats". It's a tactical, not a strategic move.
Granted, the Shiite is flung both ways, but I tend to see a lot more of being flung at conservatives.
Only because you identify with conservatives and thus you remember it better when goes in one direction (confirmation bias). For example, Anne Coulter has written books that accuse anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a traitor to America. There's plenty more of that in other conservative books, Fox News and talk radio. So there's plenty going in both directions. I'm inclined to believe, in fact, that the flow is the opposite direction that you believe it flows in (and of course, that could be a result of my own confirmation bias). However, many of things you claim are "hyperbolic stereotypes" are merely the actual truth.
1) Limiting access to abortion and birth control is literally part of the subjugation of women. It restricts their right to have control over their own bodies, because of a conclusion derived from a belief derived from a holy book. When men use their religious beliefs to control what women are allowed to do, it certainly looks like misogyny to women. 2) "Supporting a strong defense" is supporting the "military industrial complex". They're two different ways of framing the same idea (spending money on armies and the companies that support and supply them). 3) If the Republicans lower taxes for everyone but a disproportionate amount of that tax break goes to rich, then it's pretty obvious that they are favouring the rich. 4) If they give workers "the right to accept a job without joining a union" they are labelled as being "anti-union" because that policy weakens unions, by encouraging workers to free-load. They get to enjoying the benefits of the union's negotiations without paying for them. 5) If the Republicans want to "improve education" by removing teachers or teacher's rights or cut education costs by firing teachers cutting their salaries and/or benefits, then they are accused of being anti-teacher. Because those policies are all anti-teacher.
The problem is that it's not hyperbole, if it's accurate.
Well Obama and Oklahoma both start with O, so they must be the same thing right? Also, he firmly believes that Oklahoma is secretly made of muslin from Kansas.
What I've learned from the "liberal media" isn't that he says stupid stuff, but that he says "weird stuff". Like "There's no plate like chrome for the hollandaise" and "bet you $10,000 that I'm right". I mean if he'd bet "a million dollars" it would sounded like confident bravado, or if he bet $20, it would sound like a friendly wager. But $10,000 is neither it sounds like he knows that he can afford to lose that amount on a random wager.
Of course, I think Mitt Romney is one of the least abhorrent Republican candidates to liberals. Many of them would be hopeful that he is actually only paying lip service to the Republican right wing nut cases. Which is also the reason why most of them don't like him.
But then again I don't pay actually pay that much attention to American media... So maybe you can show us where he's been badly taken out of context? I'm less sceptical about the conservative commentators misquoting him, though, mostly because it seems to be the way they normally operate.
You learned the wrong lesson. I can't speak specifically to your principal, but the Principal has to act in an even handed manner. The witnesses clearly saw you attack another student, and they most likely did not see the provocation. You made yourself look like the villain by how you chose to react. I fully understand the problem, I've been in the same situation and made the same mistakes.
The authority is required to maintain an orderly system, that is the authority's primary duty. You disrupted the order and were punished for it. If you had instead tricked or forced the bully into disrupting it instead, he would have been punished instead. That's the real lesson, that you need to be aware of the situation and not allow yourself to manipulated into rash acts where they are not to your own advantage.
My point isn't that he's lying, it's that let's suppose that there's a sweeping Republican victory. Ron Paul wins the White House, and the Republicans have super-majorities in congress and senate. Now Ron Paul has to convince his own party to reverse direction to get much done. He'd have to write a lot of pardons, there's somewhere around 600,000 Americans in prison on drug charges. He can sign an executive order banning unconstitutional prosecutions, but frankly, that won't accomplish anything. If the people doing those unconstitutional prosecutions actually thought it was actually unconstitutional they probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place (and they probably can't be convinced that what they're doing is unethical or unconstitutional).
Assuming he did sign all those pardons, his own party and voters would revolt against him. Pardoning drug criminals? The Republicans aren't ready for that. It defies conservative ideologies such as "once a criminal, always a criminal" and "(those) drugs are for hippies". Without the support of Congress or the Senate there is little that Ron Paul can do, and each person in Congress, in particular, cares about the outcome on their next election which is always less than 2 years away. If the popular support isn't there, they're not going to do anything. They may not openly accuse Ron Paul of being insane if he's on their side, but they're somehow end up not voting on his bills, probably because "more important" business will somehow continually appear.
The President can't do much the change the country unless he has popular support for his ideas. And there are a lot of entrenched interests who would fight Ron Paul tooth and nail on almost every issue he advocates. The only one he's likely to win? Eliminating regulation on businesses, and the end result would be exactly the opposite of what we actually want. Which is to continue the trend of risky business with the socialisation of losses and privatisation of winnings.
Thus my statements, you need more than just a leader to change things. Your leader needs motivated followers who are willing to fill the streets to demonstrate that they won't take "no" for an answer.
Sorry, but that's ignorant. If Ron Paul becomes president, he won't make pot legal, he won't put the country on the gold standard, and I'm not even sure if he will end the U.S. occupation of other countries. Why? Because just like Obama his hands will tied by the political reality that those options are not popular. He might try to do them, but he'd end up crucified and his legacy would as the most ineffectual president in U.S. history.
If you want those things come to pass, you have to do more than vote for a name. You need to convince a lot of other Americans that they're good ideas. It takes a lot more than a leader to have a revolution.
But the real beauty of it is that they don't even have to generate any content themselves. The users do all that, all Facebook does is provide a platform for it. Facebook doesn't really need to diversify, they just need to figure out how to do this single trick- give away content, sell ads- over and over again.
As is often the case, I think Facebook's strength will also be it's fatal weakness. They have little control over the content, so if the content dries up they're finished. Google's advantage here is that they find the content where ever it may be hiding (as long as they are allowed to) Facebook requires people to go to Facebook and generate the content. As I understand it selling ads on Facebook doesn't work very well. The ads I see usually range from awful to apparently fraudulent. I remember hearing not so long ago that the Lion's share of Facebook's revenue come from Zynga and that without Zynga they probably wouldn't be profitable. If that's true, then Facebook is actually in a dangerously precarious position.
Personally, I think the IPO is ridiculously over valued. The minimum is twice GM's market cap and half of GE's. Slightly less than half of Google's and slightly less than a third of Microsoft's. It's about a sixth of Apple's and Apple currently has the largest market cap in the world. If anything, ridiculously over valued is an understatement.
If you only gave the tax break to the non-rich there would be an additional $1.1 trillion revenue dollars over the next decade. This $110 billion per year pales compared to our deficit just like I suggested in my post.
Oh well, then if it's only $110 billion per year, it's obviously not worth doing.
After detaining them for 12 hours, they could let them enter the country, then they'd look stupid and pointless. By turning them back they can continue to pretend they're actually doing something useful.
Indeed, racism is only one of the reasons they would use it as tool against him, the other reasons include rapacious greed and political opportunism. I agree with MechaStreisand, there are many different types of creeps in the Birther movement.
If I understand correctly, that extra revenue from 'taxing the Rich' won't even make a tiny dent in our deficit.
You don't understand correctly. The extra revenue would cut the deficit to less than half of what it is. If you look at the graphs on that page, you should be able to see that the Bush tax cuts are more than half of the structural deficit and will increase over time.
If that is true then it really illustrates what an empty "class warfare" argument this is.
It's not true, and it really illustrates how empty the "class warfare" argument is.
It's just a smoke screen to hide the failings of congress and the president to cut expenses and balance the budget.
Yes and no. Cancelling the tax cuts would help balance the budget, however, the Republican controlled congress refused to accept a budget that included a mixture of cuts and reversing the Bush tax cut on people earning over $250,000. So there is an impasse here because the Republicans refuse to seriously consider any budget that includes new tax revenue. The Democrats, on the other hand, are willing to negotiate and actually had worked out a deal that included both with the Republican leadership, however, the "Tea Party" Republicans revolted against the deal and sunk it.
BTW, I think it would be better to cut out the loopholes and simplify the tax code.
The Repbulicans can't do that either, again because of Grover Norquist. He considers "closing loopholes" to be "raising taxes". Republicans aren't allowed to do that unless they lower taxes by more than the closed loophole would raise in revenues.
I didn't pick the year, the other guy did and I'm rightfully pointing out that he's absolutely 100% wrong. You, on the other hand are trying to cherry-picking 1998 as your start year for your "no trend" assertion because it was an unusually warm year because of an unusually strong El Nino. There's only no trend from 1998 if you carefully choose the start point and end point and ignore all the data between. Which is ludicrously stupid.
I think you have that backwards, the WSJ published it because they're trying to convince they're readership that AGW doesn't exist and therefore they should vote for the Republicans that Ruper Murdoch also owns (in addition to the WSJ).
It's all about using his influence over the Republicans to make more money, in the end.
Also Rupert Murdoch hates global warming because it's very existence questions the fundamental core assumptions of laissez-faire economics. I.e. that the market is perfect and can not create a problem that it won't eventually solve. And questioning laissez-faire economics can lead to undesirable outcomes, like regulation of media barons who use their political influence to undermine the democratic process.
Arctic sea ice is right now at above average levels.
How can you look at a graph that has an average line and shows the current level as more than 2 standard deviations below the average as "above average"? It's right there on the graph. It's right there in the text too:
For the Arctic as a whole, ice extent for the month remained far below average.
Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite record. The five lowest December extents in the satellite record have occurred in the past six years.
This is the third lowest December ice extent in the 1979 to 2011 satellite data record, 970,000 square kilometers (375,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent.
It's almost a million square kilometers below the average extent. Could you be more wrong?
Every year since 1997 has been warmer than 1997. Every single one. Every one. So you're absolutely 100% wrong.
If you look at the second graph on this page you'll see how you've been lied to. It's getting warmer, the people who are trying to trick you are simply cherry-picking picking two arbitrary points on a noisy line and claimin those two points are the trend. In some cases you're being deliberately deceived, in other cases, the people telling you this junk are just completely ignorant. Oh and if you really believe in climate change denial, Not-actually-a Lord Muncton (one of the most prominent anti-global warming spokespeople), also has a pill that simultaneously cures AIDS and cancer. Seriously. That's the kind of people who claim that anthropogenic global warming isn't real and that you can't trust scientists.
Muncton also advocated that every man, woman and child in the United States should be tested monthly for AIDS and anyone detected with signs of an infection should be "permanently removed from the population". He a right-wing conservative crackpot.
Check again, they rounded up a few know nothings about climate change with titles. I stopped reading about halfway through the list because I couldn't be bothered to finish reading the poorly laid out "signatories" section. The most relevent title I saw was "former head of climate change for meteorology". For the most part it appears to be the usual bundle of physicists and other people with little to no expertise in the field.
The Wall Street Journal is likely under the same orders that other Rupert Murdoch owned papers are under: Under no circumstances can they say anything positive about global warming. Much of the so-called controversy is generated directly from Rupert Murdoch's publications. I'd attack the arguments but they're just the usual gish-gallop of idiocy meant to reassure conservatives that climate change doesn't exist.
I skimmed the article and it looks like most of the stuff in there can be corrected from this article.
Climate change is here, it's happening, there's 14 separate lines of evidence that all indicate the world is warming, and 13 other lines of evidence that indicates the current global warming is casued by humans. It's time to end the idiocy.
You obviously don't have a company because your hypothetical situation will rarely happen in reality. In effect, the only situation where that's even possible would be if you were outsourcing manufacturing to China. It would fundamentally unethical to increase productivity 200% and not reward your employees for their increased productivity. People who think like you are the number one problem with America and Capitalism.
However, as you've illustrated, California's problems aren't "a slide toward socialism" but structural problems which make it difficult to actually balance budgets because they are functionally unable to increase revenues to cover new programs.
Slashdot Mirror
What on earth makes you think they don't understand it though?
Every time I see a "Tea Party" spokesperson talk about economic or government issues they tend to be 100% wrong. Usually they're too caught up in attacking Obama for every conceivable evil to be able to coherently put forth a single intelligent idea.
The fact that a debt ceiling deal was reached shows that they put their ideological concerns aside. It's obvious they were just going for the best bargain they could get with the power they had. That IS realpolitik.
That's not the way I remember it. They tried to scupper the deal and lost because they didn't have the power they thought they had.
I don't think you recognise the point, and that's not a Godwin. In a Godwin he calls you a Nazi for some reason. The point is clear and salient, one issue voters risk ignoring bigger travesties for the sake of their one issue, and that is why some people resent them.
Obama's an American moderate on the left-right spectrum. Everywhere else that makes him somewhere between moderately and extremely right wing.
Of course, he still did move their production overseas and apparent it is kept there because of the benefits of employing wage slaves who can be roused out their beds at midnight and forced to work 18 hour shifts to meet arbitrary corporate deadlines.
Why would they? The libertarian got 1% of the vote. Their actual opponent got close to 50%, the bigger prize is in prying away voters from the opposition that matters.
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank.
I'm not sure if the American revolutionary idea of an armed militia overthrowing an oppressive government has much basis in reality now, if it ever did. The American Revolution was only possible because Britain was engaged in a much more important war close to home. More importantly, the last time that I checked the U.S. spent more on it's military than every other nation combined. A successful revolution against the government is going to have to involve inciting a substantial part of that military to defect to the revolutionary side. Shooting at them is not going to achieve that aim.
Even the article above indicates this isn't really "Republicans standing up for the little guy", it's "Republicans sticking it to Hollywood for supporting the Democrats". It's a tactical, not a strategic move.
Granted, the Shiite is flung both ways, but I tend to see a lot more of being flung at conservatives.
Only because you identify with conservatives and thus you remember it better when goes in one direction (confirmation bias). For example, Anne Coulter has written books that accuse anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a traitor to America. There's plenty more of that in other conservative books, Fox News and talk radio. So there's plenty going in both directions. I'm inclined to believe, in fact, that the flow is the opposite direction that you believe it flows in (and of course, that could be a result of my own confirmation bias). However, many of things you claim are "hyperbolic stereotypes" are merely the actual truth.
1) Limiting access to abortion and birth control is literally part of the subjugation of women. It restricts their right to have control over their own bodies, because of a conclusion derived from a belief derived from a holy book. When men use their religious beliefs to control what women are allowed to do, it certainly looks like misogyny to women.
2) "Supporting a strong defense" is supporting the "military industrial complex". They're two different ways of framing the same idea (spending money on armies and the companies that support and supply them).
3) If the Republicans lower taxes for everyone but a disproportionate amount of that tax break goes to rich, then it's pretty obvious that they are favouring the rich.
4) If they give workers "the right to accept a job without joining a union" they are labelled as being "anti-union" because that policy weakens unions, by encouraging workers to free-load. They get to enjoying the benefits of the union's negotiations without paying for them.
5) If the Republicans want to "improve education" by removing teachers or teacher's rights or cut education costs by firing teachers cutting their salaries and/or benefits, then they are accused of being anti-teacher. Because those policies are all anti-teacher.
The problem is that it's not hyperbole, if it's accurate.
Well Obama and Oklahoma both start with O, so they must be the same thing right? Also, he firmly believes that Oklahoma is secretly made of muslin from Kansas.
What I've learned from the "liberal media" isn't that he says stupid stuff, but that he says "weird stuff". Like "There's no plate like chrome for the hollandaise" and "bet you $10,000 that I'm right". I mean if he'd bet "a million dollars" it would sounded like confident bravado, or if he bet $20, it would sound like a friendly wager. But $10,000 is neither it sounds like he knows that he can afford to lose that amount on a random wager.
Of course, I think Mitt Romney is one of the least abhorrent Republican candidates to liberals. Many of them would be hopeful that he is actually only paying lip service to the Republican right wing nut cases. Which is also the reason why most of them don't like him.
But then again I don't pay actually pay that much attention to American media... So maybe you can show us where he's been badly taken out of context? I'm less sceptical about the conservative commentators misquoting him, though, mostly because it seems to be the way they normally operate.
You learned the wrong lesson. I can't speak specifically to your principal, but the Principal has to act in an even handed manner. The witnesses clearly saw you attack another student, and they most likely did not see the provocation. You made yourself look like the villain by how you chose to react. I fully understand the problem, I've been in the same situation and made the same mistakes.
The authority is required to maintain an orderly system, that is the authority's primary duty. You disrupted the order and were punished for it. If you had instead tricked or forced the bully into disrupting it instead, he would have been punished instead. That's the real lesson, that you need to be aware of the situation and not allow yourself to manipulated into rash acts where they are not to your own advantage.
My point isn't that he's lying, it's that let's suppose that there's a sweeping Republican victory. Ron Paul wins the White House, and the Republicans have super-majorities in congress and senate. Now Ron Paul has to convince his own party to reverse direction to get much done. He'd have to write a lot of pardons, there's somewhere around 600,000 Americans in prison on drug charges. He can sign an executive order banning unconstitutional prosecutions, but frankly, that won't accomplish anything. If the people doing those unconstitutional prosecutions actually thought it was actually unconstitutional they probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place (and they probably can't be convinced that what they're doing is unethical or unconstitutional).
Assuming he did sign all those pardons, his own party and voters would revolt against him. Pardoning drug criminals? The Republicans aren't ready for that. It defies conservative ideologies such as "once a criminal, always a criminal" and "(those) drugs are for hippies". Without the support of Congress or the Senate there is little that Ron Paul can do, and each person in Congress, in particular, cares about the outcome on their next election which is always less than 2 years away. If the popular support isn't there, they're not going to do anything. They may not openly accuse Ron Paul of being insane if he's on their side, but they're somehow end up not voting on his bills, probably because "more important" business will somehow continually appear.
The President can't do much the change the country unless he has popular support for his ideas. And there are a lot of entrenched interests who would fight Ron Paul tooth and nail on almost every issue he advocates. The only one he's likely to win? Eliminating regulation on businesses, and the end result would be exactly the opposite of what we actually want. Which is to continue the trend of risky business with the socialisation of losses and privatisation of winnings.
Thus my statements, you need more than just a leader to change things. Your leader needs motivated followers who are willing to fill the streets to demonstrate that they won't take "no" for an answer.
And that exactly why the entire argument is ridiculous. It's only about justifying not having to pay (as much) taxes.
Sorry, but that's ignorant. If Ron Paul becomes president, he won't make pot legal, he won't put the country on the gold standard, and I'm not even sure if he will end the U.S. occupation of other countries. Why? Because just like Obama his hands will tied by the political reality that those options are not popular. He might try to do them, but he'd end up crucified and his legacy would as the most ineffectual president in U.S. history.
If you want those things come to pass, you have to do more than vote for a name. You need to convince a lot of other Americans that they're good ideas. It takes a lot more than a leader to have a revolution.
But the real beauty of it is that they don't even have to generate any content themselves. The users do all that, all Facebook does is provide a platform for it. Facebook doesn't really need to diversify, they just need to figure out how to do this single trick- give away content, sell ads- over and over again.
As is often the case, I think Facebook's strength will also be it's fatal weakness. They have little control over the content, so if the content dries up they're finished. Google's advantage here is that they find the content where ever it may be hiding (as long as they are allowed to) Facebook requires people to go to Facebook and generate the content. As I understand it selling ads on Facebook doesn't work very well. The ads I see usually range from awful to apparently fraudulent. I remember hearing not so long ago that the Lion's share of Facebook's revenue come from Zynga and that without Zynga they probably wouldn't be profitable. If that's true, then Facebook is actually in a dangerously precarious position.
Personally, I think the IPO is ridiculously over valued. The minimum is twice GM's market cap and half of GE's. Slightly less than half of Google's and slightly less than a third of Microsoft's. It's about a sixth of Apple's and Apple currently has the largest market cap in the world. If anything, ridiculously over valued is an understatement.
If you only gave the tax break to the non-rich there would be an additional $1.1 trillion revenue dollars over the next decade. This $110 billion per year pales compared to our deficit just like I suggested in my post.
Oh well, then if it's only $110 billion per year, it's obviously not worth doing.
After detaining them for 12 hours, they could let them enter the country, then they'd look stupid and pointless. By turning them back they can continue to pretend they're actually doing something useful.
Indeed, racism is only one of the reasons they would use it as tool against him, the other reasons include rapacious greed and political opportunism. I agree with MechaStreisand, there are many different types of creeps in the Birther movement.
If I understand correctly, that extra revenue from 'taxing the Rich' won't even make a tiny dent in our deficit.
You don't understand correctly. The extra revenue would cut the deficit to less than half of what it is. If you look at the graphs on that page, you should be able to see that the Bush tax cuts are more than half of the structural deficit and will increase over time.
If that is true then it really illustrates what an empty "class warfare" argument this is.
It's not true, and it really illustrates how empty the "class warfare" argument is.
It's just a smoke screen to hide the failings of congress and the president to cut expenses and balance the budget.
Yes and no. Cancelling the tax cuts would help balance the budget, however, the Republican controlled congress refused to accept a budget that included a mixture of cuts and reversing the Bush tax cut on people earning over $250,000. So there is an impasse here because the Republicans refuse to seriously consider any budget that includes new tax revenue. The Democrats, on the other hand, are willing to negotiate and actually had worked out a deal that included both with the Republican leadership, however, the "Tea Party" Republicans revolted against the deal and sunk it.
BTW, I think it would be better to cut out the loopholes and simplify the tax code.
The Repbulicans can't do that either, again because of Grover Norquist. He considers "closing loopholes" to be "raising taxes". Republicans aren't allowed to do that unless they lower taxes by more than the closed loophole would raise in revenues.
I didn't pick the year, the other guy did and I'm rightfully pointing out that he's absolutely 100% wrong. You, on the other hand are trying to cherry-picking 1998 as your start year for your "no trend" assertion because it was an unusually warm year because of an unusually strong El Nino. There's only no trend from 1998 if you carefully choose the start point and end point and ignore all the data between. Which is ludicrously stupid.
Further reading: There has been a warming trend since 1998.
I think you have that backwards, the WSJ published it because they're trying to convince they're readership that AGW doesn't exist and therefore they should vote for the Republicans that Ruper Murdoch also owns (in addition to the WSJ).
It's all about using his influence over the Republicans to make more money, in the end.
Also Rupert Murdoch hates global warming because it's very existence questions the fundamental core assumptions of laissez-faire economics. I.e. that the market is perfect and can not create a problem that it won't eventually solve. And questioning laissez-faire economics can lead to undesirable outcomes, like regulation of media barons who use their political influence to undermine the democratic process.
Arctic sea ice is right now at above average levels.
How can you look at a graph that has an average line and shows the current level as more than 2 standard deviations below the average as "above average"? It's right there on the graph. It's right there in the text too:
For the Arctic as a whole, ice extent for the month remained far below average.
Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite record. The five lowest December extents in the satellite record have occurred in the past six years.
This is the third lowest December ice extent in the 1979 to 2011 satellite data record, 970,000 square kilometers (375,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent.
It's almost a million square kilometers below the average extent. Could you be more wrong?
I think they would tell you this:
Every year since 1997 has been warmer than 1997. Every single one. Every one. So you're absolutely 100% wrong.
If you look at the second graph on this page you'll see how you've been lied to. It's getting warmer, the people who are trying to trick you are simply cherry-picking picking two arbitrary points on a noisy line and claimin those two points are the trend. In some cases you're being deliberately deceived, in other cases, the people telling you this junk are just completely ignorant. Oh and if you really believe in climate change denial, Not-actually-a Lord Muncton (one of the most prominent anti-global warming spokespeople), also has a pill that simultaneously cures AIDS and cancer. Seriously. That's the kind of people who claim that anthropogenic global warming isn't real and that you can't trust scientists.
Muncton also advocated that every man, woman and child in the United States should be tested monthly for AIDS and anyone detected with signs of an infection should be "permanently removed from the population". He a right-wing conservative crackpot.
Check again, they rounded up a few know nothings about climate change with titles. I stopped reading about halfway through the list because I couldn't be bothered to finish reading the poorly laid out "signatories" section. The most relevent title I saw was "former head of climate change for meteorology". For the most part it appears to be the usual bundle of physicists and other people with little to no expertise in the field.
The Wall Street Journal is likely under the same orders that other Rupert Murdoch owned papers are under: Under no circumstances can they say anything positive about global warming. Much of the so-called controversy is generated directly from Rupert Murdoch's publications. I'd attack the arguments but they're just the usual gish-gallop of idiocy meant to reassure conservatives that climate change doesn't exist.
I skimmed the article and it looks like most of the stuff in there can be corrected from this article.
Climate change is here, it's happening, there's 14 separate lines of evidence that all indicate the world is warming, and 13 other lines of evidence that indicates the current global warming is casued by humans. It's time to end the idiocy.
You obviously don't have a company because your hypothetical situation will rarely happen in reality. In effect, the only situation where that's even possible would be if you were outsourcing manufacturing to China. It would fundamentally unethical to increase productivity 200% and not reward your employees for their increased productivity. People who think like you are the number one problem with America and Capitalism.
I stand corrected.
However, as you've illustrated, California's problems aren't "a slide toward socialism" but structural problems which make it difficult to actually balance budgets because they are functionally unable to increase revenues to cover new programs.