Why we Can't "Spend, Spend, Spend"

[ssd]

Trench:
What I find interesting about the climate debate is as little as 20 years ago, the climatologists were talking of a coming ice age and now are talking about global warming.

Human timeline in regards to Earth's timeline is an insignificant spec - mere milliseconds.

Are we impacting it? I do not know but if we are, and we screw it up really really good -we all die and that should make all the diehard environmentalists REALLY happy as then, Earth wouldn't have to worry about us messing it up anymore.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Really? I must have missed that jobs bill the Republican House passed on to the Senate.

Please post the House Resolution number for us, Skul.

opcorn2

:facepalm:

I was about to mention that. Poor skul. As if they have done anything for the middle class.

 

[ssd]

That's a face palm yet no budget gets passed since 2008 (even with control of both the house and the senate)

Yet you slam Skul for being partisan?

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

That's a face palm yet no budget gets passed since 2008 (even with control of both the house and the senate)

Yet you slam Skul for being partisan?

I voted for Ron Paul. So maybe you should redirect your anger. My problem with some of the tools on here is that they fight for nothing but party. People like skul are why this country is so fucked up.

 

[Trench]

Trench:
What I find interesting about the climate debate is as little as 20 years ago, the climatologists were talking of a coming ice age and now are talking about global warming.

Human timeline in regards to Earth's timeline is an insignificant spec - mere milliseconds.

Are we impacting it? I do not know but if we are, and we screw it up really really good -we all die and that should make all the diehard environmentalists REALLY happy as then, Earth wouldn't have to worry about us messing it up anymore.

Let's put politics aside for a moment, SSD.

The human race dumps 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth's atmosphere every 24 hours.

Do you really believe that's having no negative impact on our environment? :shrug:

 

[ssd]

All that I am saying is that the same science that predicted an ice age 20 years ago is now predicting a warming planet. Does that not sound odd to you?
The analysis from 20 years not only turned on it's head but completely reversed in a nanosecond of evolutionary time?

This is not a political issue for me.

I am a good steward of the planet. I think all should be.

I would be more concerned with the pollution coming out of the brick nations (and any emerging nation) than I am out of the developed world.

 

[Trench]

All that I am saying is that the same science that predicted an ice age 20 years ago is now predicting a warming planet. Does that not sound odd to you?

The analysis from 20 years not only turned on it's head but completely reversed in a nanosecond of evolutionary time?

Actually, you're misinformed about that, SSD.

The vast majority of climate scientists have been prediciting global warming since the 1950's. However, there was a brief period in the 1970's when about 10% of climate scientists hypothesized about a global cooling trend based on the cooling trend that occurred between 1945 and the early 1970's. They were wrong.

Your point about deep time climate change vs. AGW is better addressed by
one of the preeminent climate scientists in the world, Dr. Richad Alley...

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RdtyH3n9zK0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ssd]

Thanks, Trench. I'll take a look. (I wonder if that guy gets many dates? lol)

I remember a Times covershot predicting the next ice age.....


Anyway, my point is:

the religion or cult of environmentalism has a backing of people who stand to gain enormous amounts of money and power from global climate change - much like the Biorgia and Medici gained power thru the papacy and the Catholic Church

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

one of the preeminent climate scientists in the world, Dr. Richad Alley...

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RdtyH3n9zK0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've seen that guy somewhere before but can't place it.

 

[Trench]

I've seen that guy somewhere before but can't place it.

Maybe I can help, Tramp...

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L2m9SNzxJJA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And no, I don't think he gets many dates, SSD.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Your point about deep time climate change vs. AGW is better addressed by
one of the preeminent climate scientists in the world, Dr. Richad Alley..

Another one of those guys trying to get rich off this global warming BS. . . . . these guys kill me. . . driving around in their fancy cars and their pin stripe suits trying to bilk the US taxpayers out of more money

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Maybe I can help, Tramp...

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L2m9SNzxJJA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And no, I don't think he gets many dates, SSD.

Thanks. I knew I had seen him make a fool out of a simpleton before.

 

[Trench]

Another one of those guys trying to get rich off this global warming BS. . . . . these guys kill me. . . driving around in their fancy cars and their pin stripe suits trying to bilk the US taxpayers out of more money

Not a lot of people know this but both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates started out as climate scientists. :SIB

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Not a lot of people know this but both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates started out as climate scientists. :SIB

That would be because only those that eat and drink at flowershops are privvy to such distortions--but Buffett did by a windmill farm in 1961.

Note to Trench--being windy/full of hot air- does not make you a climate scientist :lol:

 

[bleedingpurple]

I don't think we can spend, spend, spend either but we can't go back to the way it was either. Some of you guys think that we should go back to the way it was 4 years ago. :shrug

Since it has been posted that only 51% pay taxes then regardless of what me, you, or anyone else thinks that 51% has to pick up the slack, it's just the way it is..

So we know the 51% is not getting the job done in relation to what the country spends. So yes we need to cut spending (What do we cut) and WE NEED TO CUT THE TAX BREAKS IMO.. The tax breaks to the ultra rich are not helping us out. What is the alternative to not taking more from the ultra rich? Ok it is taking more from the middle class thus weakening the economy.

 

[bleedingpurple]

In a perfect world,

I would cut military spending by 20% to start with, Cap Health Care Lawsuits at 3 - 5 million, Stop companies from moving to other countries ( that would mean figuring out a better infrastructure to keep businesses here). I would get rid of all political parties as they only back bite each other and do what is best for the party instead of the country. Find a way for universal health care and maybe cut out health insurance companies.

IMO the country needs to focus more on..

Education
Health Care
Energy

 

[azbob]

The economy ebbs and flows and moved into a recession, with the typical job losses, near the end of Bush's term.

That recession, typically 7-9 months in length was cultivated, nurtured, massaged and validated by decisions of The Obama's administration. We are still in a recession be it a double dip or now. Those decisions/actions were of commision and ommision including:

1) ObamaCare - yes healthcare is 1/6 of the economy but, no business is going to hire in an environment where you don't know what regulations you will have to enact in the very near future. This I can verify from personal experience. Throw in fear from other regulatory initiatives and businesses are frozen.

2) Failure to act on his own commision - a report was asked for and delivered to The Obama regarding actions to be taken on SSN and Medicare...he ignored it which sent a signal of inaction and lack of attention to the long term economy.

3) Tea Party - have written the playbook for Washington the past year...The Obama is just a player and not relevant. Lack of leadership in the administration directly tranlates to lack of confidence in the government and its ability to manage the economy.

4) The Stimulas - every state has a story of paying 22million for 14 jobs. It didn't work and the point is when it was done, all other actions on jobs stopped.

5) TARP - same as above, we bailed out the banks and made the assumption trickle down would work to save homes. It didn't and during that time, nothing else was done re: housing.

6) Leadership - During the two years The Obama had a dem majority in the House/Senate, nothing happened. During his presidency, there has been no budget, no plan and seemingly no motivation to do anything until the Tea Party made him.

You can fill in the blanks, after three years, how much of this you want to attribute to The Obama but, no one can argue that he had two years to get something done and there was not one positive outcome (on the economy) resulting from anything he did during that period...or since.

 

[Trench]

The economy ebbs and flows and moved into a recession, with the typical job losses, near the end of Bush's term.

Baghdad Bob resurfaces in Arizona...

"Dee economy ees strong. Dees ees just normal ebb and flow... you cannot blame
Mr. Boosh! I woo'd blame it on dee next guy."

 

[StevieD]

"3) Tea Party - have written the playbook for Washington the past year...The Obama is just a player and not relevant. Lack of leadership in the administration directly tranlates to lack of confidence in the government and its ability to manage the economy."

Actually, not a bad post. The first statement is laughable but after that it is pretty much on course I think.

However if you assume number 3 to be correct, which I do too, why can't they be blamed for not turning things around? I agree that so far Obama has shown no leadership except to cave in to every Republican demand, which is not what he was elected to do. Which is why he is a failure. But I am interested in how you can give the Tea Party a free ride for this mess.

 

[Duff Miver]

no business is going to hire in an environment where you don't know what regulations you will have to enact in the very near future. This I can verify from personal experience. .

Your personal experience obviously doesn't include successful business management. Business hires for one reason - they need more employees to serve their customers. Joe's restaurant adds a third waitress when, and only when, two cannot adequately serve his customers. That's how Joe makes his hiring decision, not some nebulous fear of the unknown.

Ford adds a 1000 person shift when, and only when they need those people to satisfy demand for their product. That is what drives their decision about hiring, not government regulations, not interest rates. They hire people who can produce a product for which there is customer demand. No increased demand = no additional hiring. Period.

UPS hires more delivery men when their present staff cannot get everything delivered. Their hiring is based on that and that alone.

Nobody hires additional personnel unless they need them. Business will not hire surplus people just because insurance costs are low, nor will they turn away business because insurance rates are high.

Your understanding as to how hiring decisions are made is about as accurate as knowing how Fed gas taxes are spent.

You and Bachmann must be on the same drugs. Dunce pills.