Global Warming News

[keegs]

Sir,
Your real life experiences speak far more eloquently than my words could ever hope to. Thank you and I'm glad that your an American.

On a per-capita basis, how much was Czechoslovakia spending on healthcare?

I'll concede....they were making great beer.

 

[Loren49]

MikePA,
Now, now, must you resort to name calling? Bush lowered them, especially for the rich. I don't believe that worked well enough as he still operated at a yearly deficit. As I stated, those cuts are still in effect. The percent of wealth with the rich increased and the middle class lost. Is that a result of this policy? I believe revenues were up during the Clinton years after taxes were raised. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to state that it was the only reason. I believe that there are many other factors at play.

Wealth inequality in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wealth inequality in the United States refers to the unequal distribution of financial assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, businesses, savings, and investments. [1] Those who acquire a great deal of financial wealth do so primarily through the appreciation of fiscal portfolios. For this reason, financial wealth involves only stocks and mutual funds, and other investments and is subject to much greater inequality than net worth alone. Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."[2]
Net worth is defined as the difference between total assets (includes both tangible assets such as homes and vehicles and intangible such as stocks and checking accounts) and total liabilities (debt, loans, etc.) [3]

Also it seems you're showing a true bias when you assume that anyone who feels that its good when a group of people through its government provides a good level of universal health care. Were you calling the European Democratic States "socialists/communists" or was that just aimed at me. Don't forget Canada, Mexico, Japan etc.


FallbrockFarmer-I believe there are probably some other pretty good places on this earth to live. But the old "love it or leave it" was lame when it was first used and still is. I have the right and obligation as any US citizen to work for what I believe is best for our country. Currently I am on our Town Board and do what I can at the local level. Implying that anyone who disagrees with your views is in favor of "socialist/communist/Marxist" states is not reasonable.

I may be mistaken but it seems to me that this use of "name-calling/ derogatory-labeling" has been use by a few - all on the same side of this discussion.

I've certainly used some sarcasm, but I'm not sure you got it anyway. There I go again.

Loren

 

[MikePA]

More revisionist claptrap. Toss around a couple percentages to cloud the issue. CBO always analyzes a static model and never thinks changing policy will change behavior.

Simple Concept

Raise taxes on an activity/product = Less Activity and sales of product.
Lower taxes on an activity/product = More activity and sales of product.

Lower tax rates = more revenue. Congress always spends it and more which explains the deficits going up.

I'm done with this. You are not interested in facts.

 

[Barry Bowen]

Bush's problem was not a lack of tax revenue, it was an excess of spending. This national debt will smother this country soon enough. There has never been a country that survived the debt getting to 90% of GDP, and we are currently at 84%. Do not listen to tout TV as to how the ecomomy is doing, they lie. Oh and global warming is a complete hoax. The globes natural temps move up and down anyway.

 

[Loren49]

MikePA,

Guess we'd have to classify 5 Supreme Court Justices as revisionists - or isn't 100 years considered a long standing view.

reｷviｷsionｷism (r-vzh-nzm)
n.
1. Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.

I believe revisionists freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote.

Maybe its a compliment.

Thanks,
Loren

 

[LMTC]

MikePA,
Now, now, must you resort to name calling? Bush lowered them, especially for the rich. I don't believe that worked well enough as he still operated at a yearly deficit. As I stated, those cuts are still in effect. The percent of wealth with the rich increased and the middle class lost. Is that a result of this policy? I believe revenues were up during the Clinton years after taxes were raised. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to state that it was the only reason. I believe that there are many other factors at play.

Wealth inequality in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wealth inequality in the United States refers to the unequal distribution of financial assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, businesses, savings, and investments. [1] Those who acquire a great deal of financial wealth do so primarily through the appreciation of fiscal portfolios. For this reason, financial wealth involves only stocks and mutual funds, and other investments and is subject to much greater inequality than net worth alone. Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."[2]
Net worth is defined as the difference between total assets (includes both tangible assets such as homes and vehicles and intangible such as stocks and checking accounts) and total liabilities (debt, loans, etc.) [3]

Also it seems you're showing a true bias when you assume that anyone who feels that its good when a group of people through its government provides a good level of universal health care. Were you calling the European Democratic States "socialists/communists" or was that just aimed at me. Don't forget Canada, Mexico, Japan etc.


FallbrockFarmer-I believe there are probably some other pretty good places on this earth to live. But the old "love it or leave it" was lame when it was first used and still is. I have the right and obligation as any US citizen to work for what I believe is best for our country. Currently I am on our Town Board and do what I can at the local level. Implying that anyone who disagrees with your views is in favor of "socialist/communist/Marxist" states is not reasonable.

I may be mistaken but it seems to me that this use of "name-calling/ derogatory-labeling" has been use by a few - all on the same side of this discussion.

I've certainly used some sarcasm, but I'm not sure you got it anyway. There I go again.

Loren

Once again with the vague, amorphous terms. Define "the rich". Is it anyone with more wealth than you? What is the dollar amount of total value beyond which one is rich? And how do we evaluate that wealth, since many things of value are far from static, and in fact are often rather volatile. Or is "rich" defined solely by income rather than total worth? If you're going to introduce these vague generalizations into your arguments put some parameters on them...otherwise you start making even less sense to those of us who are truly trying to follow what is already a very tenuous argument to us. Oh, and if you want to give me the same caustic reply you gave when I asked what big oil was, feel free to so with the assurance that at that point I will completely give up reading your side of the isssue.

So far I am in 90% or more disagreement with you, but I am willing to "listen" and consider, but I have got to be able to understand the terms of any argument/presentation. Your argument would come across as so much more rational if you used something like "those with an IRS reportable annual income of 1 million dollars or more", or those with a total worth valuation based on (name your standard or process here) of $5 million or more. "The rich", without definition, just doesn't cut it...and sounds like the name-calling you are so quick to attribute to others.

 

[dave1949]

'Moderation in all things.'
Terence, Andria
Roman comic dramatist (185 BC - 159 BC)

I too am glad Prokop is an American and has taken the time to share his experience.

There is ancient wisdom in the quote above. Applied to political issues, I believe it means we should always be looking for a sensible middle ground.

Ultra-capitalism would result in just as much FUBAR as ultra-socialism. I am glad we don't practice it here in the US. Ism's are dangerous things.

Dave.

 

[dmccarty]

... It is the idea that's total FUBAR from the very beginning. If you take away the personal interest, nobody really cares where the system goes and the result is just that - FUBAR. ...

I was bused in high school. It sure was an education. The school I went to was in a poor area of the city surrounded by public housing. My bus home got to the HS 20-30 minutes after school was out so we would sometimes walk over to the store in public housing.

What was very obvious was that if you don't own it, you don't care about it. The buildings were well constructed out of brick and concrete. Very nice looking. But not after they had been lived in for awhile. The housing around the school was very run down because people just did not care. It was not theirs. "THEY" will take care of the problems.

My first house was built with much less quality than I saw in those public housing buildings but my house looked much better because it was MINE. And there was no THEY to blame for not doing things.

I guess/hope they have fixed the food stamp program today but back then I saw people in the store buying junk food and sodas with food stamps. Even at that age I knew what they were buying was not good for you.

The radio show I listen too was having landlords call in with stories about bad renters this morning. They had people peeing in a corner of the house. One lady filled up a spare bedroom and bathroom with garbage for 3-4 months. One group of renters painted the inside walls gray. Died the carpet gray. Painted all the wall plates black. Put in a rock climbing wall. Cut down all of the bushes around the house and then put stump killer on the stumps. Then they planted wild flowers in the lawn. Cost the owner $28,000 to fix the place up. One landlord check on one of his properties and found the door wide open with the renters asleep in the living room. In the middle of winter. With a three foot snow drift in the living room.

If they don't own it they dont care....

People point to European and Canadian health care systems but if they go read what newspapers it aint so pretty. In the UK they look at your age and the cost of a procedure. If it costs too much and they figure you don't have long to live you don't get the health care. The quality of nursing in the UK sounds horrible from the articles I have read.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story a few years back about Canadians going to the US for major surgery because the wait times are so long at home. Nothing really new about the Canadian Premier going to the US for health care. On another "forum" I have been on for well over 10 years there is a guy from Canada. He had very good health and then the poo hit the fan. One of his health problems required heart surgery. NOW. But the waiting list was so long that it was very possible he would die before he got the procedure. He was "lucky" in that his job was as a health care adjudicator. His job was to fight for people to get the health care they need. Because he knew the system he was able to get the procedure.

If the Canadian system was so good they would not need adjudicators nor would people have to go the US to get health care.

The WSJ editorial page might be conservative but the rest of the paper like almost all other papers in the US suffers from a lack of political diversity in the staff. Nothing new there either. Study after study as shown this problem over the years. The WSJ just is not as biased as some papers. Like my local paper.

Later,
Dan

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

MikePA,
Now, now, must you resort to name calling? Bush lowered them, especially for the rich. I don't believe that worked well enough as he still operated at a yearly deficit. As I stated, those cuts are still in effect. The percent of wealth with the rich increased and the middle class lost. Is that a result of this policy? I believe revenues were up during the Clinton years after taxes were raised. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to state that it was the only reason. I believe that there are many other factors at play.

Wealth inequality in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wealth inequality in the United States refers to the unequal distribution of financial assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, businesses, savings, and investments. [1] Those who acquire a great deal of financial wealth do so primarily through the appreciation of fiscal portfolios. For this reason, financial wealth involves only stocks and mutual funds, and other investments and is subject to much greater inequality than net worth alone. Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."[2]
Net worth is defined as the difference between total assets (includes both tangible assets such as homes and vehicles and intangible such as stocks and checking accounts) and total liabilities (debt, loans, etc.) [3]

Also it seems you're showing a true bias when you assume that anyone who feels that its good when a group of people through its government provides a good level of universal health care. Were you calling the European Democratic States "socialists/communists" or was that just aimed at me. Don't forget Canada, Mexico, Japan etc.


FallbrockFarmer-I believe there are probably some other pretty good places on this earth to live. But the old "love it or leave it" was lame when it was first used and still is. I have the right and obligation as any US citizen to work for what I believe is best for our country. Currently I am on our Town Board and do what I can at the local level. Implying that anyone who disagrees with your views is in favor of "socialist/communist/Marxist" states is not reasonable.

I may be mistaken but it seems to me that this use of "name-calling/ derogatory-labeling" has been use by a few - all on the same side of this discussion.

I've certainly used some sarcasm, but I'm not sure you got it anyway. There I go again.

Loren

I thought that we weren't supposed to get political,and I have tried not to name specific political figures, but....
if you are going to talk about the Bush tax cuts, I seem to recall there was an across the board tax cut by percentage,
As we have a progressive tax system"The Rich"(i.e.anyone w/ a job)OF COURSE got a bigger tax cut. DUH.
Throughout your posts your tone is somehow the rich are somehow "guilty" of some crime. As with most libs you seem to feel that economics is a zero sum game. Sorry but your wrong. Most capitalists/conservatives, understand that instead of fighting over who gets the bigger slice of the pie, it's better to just make the pie bigger.
That way everyone gets more, but that wouldn't fit into an envy based philosophical system.
How many millionaires has Bill Gates created?
How many millionaires has Michael Moore created?
At Least one. Himself. To point out the hypocrisy of the left, one only has to look the fact that Moore is worth an estimated $60mil. lives in a gated compound,owns Halliburton, stock,moved his production company from NYC to Michigan to take advantage of tax`credits that were awarded to him by the Michigan Film Board, take a WAG who happens to sit on the board of the Michigan Film Board. Bingo! His fatness himself.
I will bet a dollar to a donut that you are a fan of Moore's, Cmon Loren you know that you are! And I'll bet that you have based some of your arguments/beliefs of some of his propanganda.
As to Loving the country, I would certainly hope that you do. As to leaving it, I'm not the one that mentioned it, It
is you that continues to expound as to how our country has all these "problems"and that places such as Cuba has a "better" health care system.
Yes, The WHO list is a joke. Cuba/Morrocco/Britain have better health care than the US? Really?
As to your working on the town board, I commend you for your service.
As to the WIKIpedia definition of Wealth equality, I can do it more succinctly "Some people are rich, some are middle class, and some are poor"
And I have a solution that I think that you will like .
How about "from each according to his abilities,to each according to their needs". How does that sound?
Everybody can get whatever they want/need. Sounds like a plan. Right?

 

[Chuck52]

If your buyin?...........
Barkeep I'll take a Chateau D Yquiem .

AH HA! I knew you were a closet pinko Francophile!