Short version: It does not matter how many or what percentage of a given group agrees with a politically-charged position. What does matter is who is actually right. Anyone trying to make an argument based on majorities is doing so from a failing position. Don't just agree with each other - prove it irrefutably, else the first scientist to come along with better proof than yours will knock the whole house of cards down.
The main difference, of course, is that the settlement amount tends to focus on repairing the actual harm done.
It's not really a difference, though, from the point of view of corporations with media copyrights. I mean, the harm done, according to them, is anywhere from $400 Billion to $75 Trillion. $7500 is comparatively cheap.
Oh, and I certainly have no illusions about the cronyism in Washington - it accompanies all big money, including the one created by taxing everything any lawyer can think of a way to tax. The only difference between the parties (and among the part members) is the cronies they partner with. The worst ideas they come up with are "bi-partisan", because it means they've all agreed on another way to screw the rest of us.
Yes, well, you are certainly well-indoctrinated. No breaking through all that conditioning, uh... OBVIOUSLY.
I've spent quite a bit of time in Germany, and know many people there. The proletariat (that's the only way to describe them, really) really have no power at all - it's all at the top. And at the top, they are quite focused on bringing all of the United States of Europe under their control. It's working quite well. And while climate change is real, fear of climate change, and the illusion that policy-makers can "fix" it, is just a tool to keep the populace in line.
They've made go in-roads with the same techniques here, as you illustrate very clearly. You don't even seem to have the critical thinking skills needed to dig into the science and question the talking points. The IPCC - "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is NOT an organization of scientists - it's an organization of politicians. They say so right on their website how they are organized, and that they cherry-pick from scientific reports, procedures that have been criticized and have had issues in the past. If you don't know who Maurice Strong, the founder of the IPCC is, you should do a little research into him and the kinds of people you are putting your trust (and the future of your decedents) into.
I don't know where you're getting this stuff. I know you posted some interesting theoreticals from some academics that are funded by green initiatives and alternative energy subsidies. But that's obviously biased and still theoretical.
Actual experiments and initiatives, which you seem to be citing, actually have had the opposite results. The European initiative was plagued by corruption, cronyism, and even without that caused increases in electricity costs. That's to be expected. Experience has shown that new taxes, even when the attempt is made, are never used to offset costs for consumers. Instead the beneficiaries are bloated government bureaucracies and those they favor, and the top-tier private interests. That's what happened in Europe.
If you're referring specifically to the RGGI states in the Northeast, that a Cap & Trade scam. It's an Agenda 21 scheme that benefits wealthy investment firms and supported by politicians because they get revenue out of it. The claims they make read like they are creating free money out of thin air, but of course it's coming from consumers, and they suffer because of it. It's not a market, it's a market intervention, and a destructive one. New Hampshire has been one of the big losers, with rates going up more than the other states, primarily because they already had more energy efficiencies in place and don't benefit as much by investing in more. As with all top-down interventionist schemes, this one will be a long-term failure even with the appearance of short-term benefits.
You can tell what's happening with this if you look at the recent auctions. They've only managed to sell about half of the emission credits available. That means traders aren't making their money, so of course now they want to lower the cap, hoping for even higher prices.
You're acting like the observations disproving many of the AGW models still being promoted are lies, because some arrogant academic can't acknowledge facts in opposition to his theories. You can't possibly be that stupid. So I'll just ask what you get out of flame baiting?
I agree that there is no free market for energy, yes.
The cost of pollution is already factored in by regulations limiting particular matter, sulfides, and other harmful chemicals. Nuclear energy costs are driven more by irrational fear than thoughtful policy, based on facts.
Of course, you will next argue that CO2, and even carbon itself (which is 18% of your physical make-up, BTW), is also a "pollutant" and calculate some outrageous sum to "pay" for it.
It's funny, isn't it, how people talk about air pollution and water pollution as bad because they want PURE air and water uncontaminated by pollutants, but when they talk about "carbon pollution", this 3rd stool of the essential elements for life is not expected to be PURE, but eliminated. They want to "sequester" it in the ground. I call that a graveyard. I mean, once the water is gone from your dead body, most of the rest is carbon.
Here on the East Coast we're about be inundated with the 17-year cicadas (Brood II). Everybody eats cicadas, even squirrels and your pets. Looking forward to seeing some good cicada recipes when the things get plentiful.
It's the same tax break as the film, record, and other industries get, and if you want to make a fair comparison these industries have also been "subsidized since inception", if that's your viewpoint of what the tax code is doing.
I already know what the issue is, and you're still buying the propaganda that oil somehow get some special subsidy beyond what is available to every industry. What's pathetic is you calling me out for quoting from the document, which you gave no indication that you even read. So, tell me, what point from the document were you trying to make?
This backs up exactly what I said. Quoting from the document in your link:
Section 199 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, referred to as the domestic manufacturing deduction, provides reductions in taxable income for American manufacturers, including domestic oil and gas producers and refiners. The value of the Section 199 deduction in FY 2010 is estimated at $13 billion and approximately 25 percent is energy-related. While domestic oil and natural gas companies utilized this provision to reduce their 2010 tax liability, other industries, including traditional manufacturing sectors and other activities such as engineering and architectural services, sound recordings, and qualified film production, also took advantage of it.
[emphasis mine]
The commentary in conservative media is actually paid for by big carbon. Propaganda works.
And the commentary in liberal media (that is, 100% of the mainstream media) is subsidized by public funding, both directly and as an indirect beneficiary. So, yes, it does.
But I'm sure that's a *spectacular* fiscal abuse, and just forking $4 billion a year over to big carbon, because otherwise the the most profitable industry in history wouldn't have enough money to line the pockets of conservative think-tanks and politicians.
Do you see the double-standard there?
I see people making this claim all the time because they don't understand the law. The double-standard would be if "big carbon" did NOT get this tax break, because it is simply a deduction for development within the US borders that EVERY company gets. So, you know, if you're developing any kind of US resources, employing US workers, operating plants and facilities inside the US and all the attendant economic development that goes around it, the tax code is designed to encourage that over doing the same development in some other country. So you want to single out a specific industry to NOT get that break? Wouldn't that discourage "energy independence" that most think it is a good goal?
There is no place on Earth that we know of: not the fiercest desert, not the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench, not in the deepest borehole ever made, nor even in the insanely radioactive core of active boiling water reactors - where life does not thrive.
You mention cherry-picking, but seem to be doing the exact same thing yourself. Well, except you're not even providing citations so we know WHICH models you're talking about and can provide the dozens of responses refuting the claims you are making. So it's more like "talking about a cherry on a tree in a vast orchard without specifying which one."
That's SCIENCE! It doesn't matter WHICH observations refute your theory, if they exist then the theory is wrong. Seeing people that claim to be "scientists" going around claiming their theory has to be protected so ignoring actual data is very disheartening. When real scientists come across observations that don't match their theory, they go back and work on a different hypothesis, they don't go around trying to discredit the people that found the data.
I believe I've shown you how we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse all this. We are already doing so on about 15 million hectares on five continents, and people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that, for illustrative purposes, if we do what I am showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world's grasslands that I've shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels(emphasis mine), while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, and their children, and all of humanity.
This is the last part of the speech. Notice the bolded text? Wouldn't taking carbon dioxide levels back to pre-industrial levels solve most of the global warming issues?
He didn't say carbon dioxide, he said carbon. Humans are almost 20% carbon, so the solution to taking more carbon out of the atmosphere is obvious: make more people.
I don't see any comparisons like that, but the cuts were phased in. I do know that the top earners are paying a higher percentage of federal revenues than ever, and it increased with the Bush tax cuts. It made the federal tax system more progressive.
The fact is, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was exactly the same in 1979 as it was in 2007: 18.5%. With the recession, tax revenue has dipped to 14.9% of GDP, while spending has risen to 25%, which accounts for our widening deficit. So it really is a spending problem, regardless of what many politicians claim.
The slight flaw in your assertion being that small merchants are exempt.
Incorrect. The bar is $1M in gross revenues. That's a very low bar - with margins of 5-10% that many small businesses have when getting started (because they have to pay not just for the cost of their goods but all of the infrastructure and marketing too), that's no more than $100,000 in profit. So if it's a one-man operation you're making a living, but just barely. If you need a staff you're not even paying yourself.
This won't hurt Amazon. This will merely annoy Amazon. It will destroy smaller online merchants, however - If not up front, then when the owner goes to prison for screwing up some obscure detail of NYC taxes on imported llama-hair socks.
It won't even annoy Amazon. They already collect sales taxes in most states, so it actually helps them. They also have patents on software for online retailers to determine sales taxes for customers by zip code, so they actually have huge profits to make as well.
Or rather find ways to collect the tax that consumers already owed.
Incorrect. Consumers pay sales tax when purchasing goods from a location IN THAT STATE. The tax should be for the infrastructure and support services for those businesses. When the businesses are in a different state, but collecting taxes for the state the purchaser is in, it's nothing but robbery. The destination state already gets taxes from the consumer in other ways, AND collects taxes for the infrastructure, roads, and gasoline for the communication channels and the shipment to the consumer's door. So it's just stealing.
Or maybe you are referring to the "use tax" that many states claim their shitizens should pay with their annual income tax for any out-of-state purchases. Those taxes are ILLEGAL, according to the US Constitution, as it imposes what amounts to a tariff for goods brought into the state. That is expressly forbidden by the Constitution, and the reason you don't see states actually pursuing taxpayers for it, because they know they would lose in court.
This will be a NEW tax on consumers, and a new additional administrative burden on small businesses, and all the excuses for passing it were lies. 9 out of 10 of all the large Internet retailers already pay taxes in 48 states. They supported this bill because it will help them to crush their small business competitors. So this law is pro big corporation and anti small business.
Well you are correct that there are many good beers sold in cans (Maui brewing and 21st Amendment Brewery come to mind, and New Belgium has some varieties in cans) They are not common, however, and the vast majority of good beers (even decent ones) only come in bottles. Not to mention that often canned beer comes in cans lined with BPA.
Now how about an experiment about the optimal water quantity for a wet t-shirt contest? Something about capillary action certainly has to be discovered...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, one scientist already destroyed this whole 'overwhelming numbers agree' argument.
Short version: It does not matter how many or what percentage of a given group agrees with a politically-charged position. What does matter is who is actually right. Anyone trying to make an argument based on majorities is doing so from a failing position. Don't just agree with each other - prove it irrefutably, else the first scientist to come along with better proof than yours will knock the whole house of cards down.
DENIER!
It's a pretty old item, why is this news? Slashdot comment trolling, or something?
The main difference, of course, is that the settlement amount tends to focus on repairing the actual harm done.
It's not really a difference, though, from the point of view of corporations with media copyrights. I mean, the harm done, according to them, is anywhere from $400 Billion to $75 Trillion. $7500 is comparatively cheap.
Oh, and I certainly have no illusions about the cronyism in Washington - it accompanies all big money, including the one created by taxing everything any lawyer can think of a way to tax. The only difference between the parties (and among the part members) is the cronies they partner with. The worst ideas they come up with are "bi-partisan", because it means they've all agreed on another way to screw the rest of us.
Yes, well, you are certainly well-indoctrinated. No breaking through all that conditioning, uh... OBVIOUSLY.
I've spent quite a bit of time in Germany, and know many people there. The proletariat (that's the only way to describe them, really) really have no power at all - it's all at the top. And at the top, they are quite focused on bringing all of the United States of Europe under their control. It's working quite well. And while climate change is real, fear of climate change, and the illusion that policy-makers can "fix" it, is just a tool to keep the populace in line.
They've made go in-roads with the same techniques here, as you illustrate very clearly. You don't even seem to have the critical thinking skills needed to dig into the science and question the talking points. The IPCC - "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is NOT an organization of scientists - it's an organization of politicians. They say so right on their website how they are organized, and that they cherry-pick from scientific reports, procedures that have been criticized and have had issues in the past. If you don't know who Maurice Strong, the founder of the IPCC is, you should do a little research into him and the kinds of people you are putting your trust (and the future of your decedents) into.
I don't know where you're getting this stuff. I know you posted some interesting theoreticals from some academics that are funded by green initiatives and alternative energy subsidies. But that's obviously biased and still theoretical.
Actual experiments and initiatives, which you seem to be citing, actually have had the opposite results. The European initiative was plagued by corruption, cronyism, and even without that caused increases in electricity costs. That's to be expected. Experience has shown that new taxes, even when the attempt is made, are never used to offset costs for consumers. Instead the beneficiaries are bloated government bureaucracies and those they favor, and the top-tier private interests. That's what happened in Europe.
If you're referring specifically to the RGGI states in the Northeast, that a Cap & Trade scam. It's an Agenda 21 scheme that benefits wealthy investment firms and supported by politicians because they get revenue out of it. The claims they make read like they are creating free money out of thin air, but of course it's coming from consumers, and they suffer because of it. It's not a market, it's a market intervention, and a destructive one. New Hampshire has been one of the big losers, with rates going up more than the other states, primarily because they already had more energy efficiencies in place and don't benefit as much by investing in more. As with all top-down interventionist schemes, this one will be a long-term failure even with the appearance of short-term benefits.
You can tell what's happening with this if you look at the recent auctions. They've only managed to sell about half of the emission credits available. That means traders aren't making their money, so of course now they want to lower the cap, hoping for even higher prices.
You're acting like the observations disproving many of the AGW models still being promoted are lies, because some arrogant academic can't acknowledge facts in opposition to his theories. You can't possibly be that stupid. So I'll just ask what you get out of flame baiting?
I agree that there is no free market for energy, yes.
The cost of pollution is already factored in by regulations limiting particular matter, sulfides, and other harmful chemicals. Nuclear energy costs are driven more by irrational fear than thoughtful policy, based on facts.
Of course, you will next argue that CO2, and even carbon itself (which is 18% of your physical make-up, BTW), is also a "pollutant" and calculate some outrageous sum to "pay" for it.
It's funny, isn't it, how people talk about air pollution and water pollution as bad because they want PURE air and water uncontaminated by pollutants, but when they talk about "carbon pollution", this 3rd stool of the essential elements for life is not expected to be PURE, but eliminated. They want to "sequester" it in the ground. I call that a graveyard. I mean, once the water is gone from your dead body, most of the rest is carbon.
Just because big carbon makes use of one tax break that other industries use does not mean that that is the only tax break it gets. Your argument is incoherent.. big carbon has been getting different tax breaks for over 100 years.
Wow and you had the nerve to call ME biased!
Here on the East Coast we're about be inundated with the 17-year cicadas (Brood II). Everybody eats cicadas, even squirrels and your pets. Looking forward to seeing some good cicada recipes when the things get plentiful.
It's the same tax break as the film, record, and other industries get, and if you want to make a fair comparison these industries have also been "subsidized since inception", if that's your viewpoint of what the tax code is doing.
I already know what the issue is, and you're still buying the propaganda that oil somehow get some special subsidy beyond what is available to every industry. What's pathetic is you calling me out for quoting from the document, which you gave no indication that you even read. So, tell me, what point from the document were you trying to make?
Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010
This backs up exactly what I said. Quoting from the document in your link:
[emphasis mine]
The commentary in conservative media is actually paid for by big carbon. Propaganda works.
And the commentary in liberal media (that is, 100% of the mainstream media) is subsidized by public funding, both directly and as an indirect beneficiary. So, yes, it does.
But I'm sure that's a *spectacular* fiscal abuse, and just forking $4 billion a year over to big carbon, because otherwise the the most profitable industry in history wouldn't have enough money to line the pockets of conservative think-tanks and politicians. Do you see the double-standard there?
I see people making this claim all the time because they don't understand the law. The double-standard would be if "big carbon" did NOT get this tax break, because it is simply a deduction for development within the US borders that EVERY company gets. So, you know, if you're developing any kind of US resources, employing US workers, operating plants and facilities inside the US and all the attendant economic development that goes around it, the tax code is designed to encourage that over doing the same development in some other country. So you want to single out a specific industry to NOT get that break? Wouldn't that discourage "energy independence" that most think it is a good goal?
There is no place on Earth that we know of: not the fiercest desert, not the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench, not in the deepest borehole ever made, nor even in the insanely radioactive core of active boiling water reactors - where life does not thrive.
Bullshit. The Dead Sea.
Nope. New Life-Forms Found at Bottom of Dead Sea.
You mention cherry-picking, but seem to be doing the exact same thing yourself. Well, except you're not even providing citations so we know WHICH models you're talking about and can provide the dozens of responses refuting the claims you are making. So it's more like "talking about a cherry on a tree in a vast orchard without specifying which one."
That's SCIENCE! It doesn't matter WHICH observations refute your theory, if they exist then the theory is wrong. Seeing people that claim to be "scientists" going around claiming their theory has to be protected so ignoring actual data is very disheartening. When real scientists come across observations that don't match their theory, they go back and work on a different hypothesis, they don't go around trying to discredit the people that found the data.
I believe I've shown you how we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse all this. We are already doing so on about 15 million hectares on five continents, and people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that, for illustrative purposes, if we do what I am showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world's grasslands that I've shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels(emphasis mine), while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, and their children, and all of humanity.
This is the last part of the speech. Notice the bolded text? Wouldn't taking carbon dioxide levels back to pre-industrial levels solve most of the global warming issues?
He didn't say carbon dioxide, he said carbon. Humans are almost 20% carbon, so the solution to taking more carbon out of the atmosphere is obvious: make more people.
When your 40 and thinking about a new career track, you have already fallen off the latter and in the HR Imbeciles mind are fatally damage goods.
Or, they use things like the number of spelling and grammar mistakes in the resumes to help screen, and yours never seem to pass that mark.
I don't see any comparisons like that, but the cuts were phased in. I do know that the top earners are paying a higher percentage of federal revenues than ever, and it increased with the Bush tax cuts. It made the federal tax system more progressive.
The fact is, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was exactly the same in 1979 as it was in 2007: 18.5%. With the recession, tax revenue has dipped to 14.9% of GDP, while spending has risen to 25%, which accounts for our widening deficit. So it really is a spending problem, regardless of what many politicians claim.
It will destroy smaller online merchants, however
The slight flaw in your assertion being that small merchants are exempt.
Incorrect. The bar is $1M in gross revenues. That's a very low bar - with margins of 5-10% that many small businesses have when getting started (because they have to pay not just for the cost of their goods but all of the infrastructure and marketing too), that's no more than $100,000 in profit. So if it's a one-man operation you're making a living, but just barely. If you need a staff you're not even paying yourself.
how is this 1 person suposed to handle tax law in over 2000 different locations?
According to Ted Cruz's speech last night, it's actually more like 9200 different jurisdictions.
Don't worry, though, they'll be publishing a book.
This won't hurt Amazon. This will merely annoy Amazon. It will destroy smaller online merchants, however - If not up front, then when the owner goes to prison for screwing up some obscure detail of NYC taxes on imported llama-hair socks.
It won't even annoy Amazon. They already collect sales taxes in most states, so it actually helps them. They also have patents on software for online retailers to determine sales taxes for customers by zip code, so they actually have huge profits to make as well.
Or rather find ways to collect the tax that consumers already owed.
Incorrect. Consumers pay sales tax when purchasing goods from a location IN THAT STATE. The tax should be for the infrastructure and support services for those businesses. When the businesses are in a different state, but collecting taxes for the state the purchaser is in, it's nothing but robbery. The destination state already gets taxes from the consumer in other ways, AND collects taxes for the infrastructure, roads, and gasoline for the communication channels and the shipment to the consumer's door. So it's just stealing.
Or maybe you are referring to the "use tax" that many states claim their shitizens should pay with their annual income tax for any out-of-state purchases. Those taxes are ILLEGAL, according to the US Constitution, as it imposes what amounts to a tariff for goods brought into the state. That is expressly forbidden by the Constitution, and the reason you don't see states actually pursuing taxpayers for it, because they know they would lose in court.
This will be a NEW tax on consumers, and a new additional administrative burden on small businesses, and all the excuses for passing it were lies. 9 out of 10 of all the large Internet retailers already pay taxes in 48 states. They supported this bill because it will help them to crush their small business competitors. So this law is pro big corporation and anti small business.
The new cans are pretty decent (the lined ones).
You mean the ones lined with BPA?
Well you are correct that there are many good beers sold in cans (Maui brewing and 21st Amendment Brewery come to mind, and New Belgium has some varieties in cans) They are not common, however, and the vast majority of good beers (even decent ones) only come in bottles. Not to mention that often canned beer comes in cans lined with BPA.
Now how about an experiment about the optimal water quantity for a wet t-shirt contest? Something about capillary action certainly has to be discovered...
I'd rather be involved in the next 15-year study to confirm the latest findings on saggy breasts.