User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 34 of 34

  1. #31
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    While the bill falls short in many ways, it sets goals in increasing energy efficiency, creating renewable sources of energy, and bringing to light the impracticality of carbon-emitting sources of energy in future sustainability of the planet.

    And on those shortcomings, let me say that this bill was an entire letdown for the citizens who will pay the price, simply because it reinforces the bowing of the government to big business interests. Consumers will be footing the bill on carbon capping, simply because business will always complain that the government cannot impede on its continually flourishing profit margins, and they have the power to block any political efforts otherwise.

    The reason that other developed countries are able to control their energy costs for citizens is because they regulate energy businesses, whether through subsidies that are actually available because of government budget allocation, or setting regulatory rules. In this circumstance, the US government thinks that it's a good idea to allow business to run as usual, but that the environmental cleanup overhead should be placed on the consumer's tab.

    While I agree with Republican leaders that this is essentially a "tax", taxes would assume that money is being taken by citizens in the interest of working for the citizens. In this case, big business is taxing its consumers through government regulation, out of a need for environmental regulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck
    As for the rest, to what extent does the military budget (a public good that is limited in its domestic impact) hinder economic growth or (far more importantly) affect the daily lives of ordinary citizens, either through direct regulation or indirectely by simply increasing the power and reach of the federal government?
    Personally I think that if I was an ordinary citizen, I'd want that 12% of my paycheck to go towards something else besides directly into military spending. Hey, maybe it could pay for my electricity bill... or better yet, we could maybe create renewable sources of energy so that our failing infrastructure of coal-based electricity doesn't get so damn pricey all of a sudden, thanks to my idiot congress.

    And of course the military doesn't hinder economic growth... well, depending on your measurement system. Top companies like Boeing love wars! And isn't the performance of top ranking industries the only measure of economic success?

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen
    Which again are based on CBO estimates which have been projected, as in the OP, to be an extremely minimized outlook of the cost to the average household over the coming years for reasons outlined in the OP, so read again sleepy head.

    Anyway, we're done.
    Yes, except for that prediction that the "lower-income families" will be hit hardest. Perhaps you need a better look yourself.

    I understand that, as a fellow human, you have a disdain for me, but could you please respond to at least the points I make? I believe that ideas created by people are separate from them and thus could possibly be less loathsome than you might think.

    I mean, I understand that you want to control the perspective of this event as much as possible, hence your constant interruption of any discussion, but you could at least pretend to carry out a discussion.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

  2. #32
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Decline View Post
    Personally I think that if I was an ordinary citizen, I'd want that 12% of my paycheck to go towards something else besides directly into military spending. Hey, maybe it could pay for my electricity bill... or better yet, we could maybe create renewable sources of energy so that our failing infrastructure of coal-based electricity doesn't get so damn pricey all of a sudden, thanks to my idiot congress.

    And of course the military doesn't hinder economic growth... well, depending on your measurement system. Top companies like Boeing love wars! And isn't the performance of top ranking industries the only measure of economic success?
    I would prefer that my paycheck go towards something that does not empower the government to control the minute aspects of my daily life.

    If coal-based electricity becomes too pricy, then that will provide incentive for companies to commit further research into renewable energy, and may even provoke a premature switch to currently more expensive and less powerful forms of renewable energy...so, um, what are you complaining about, given your previous statements? I think your real concern is that, barring a "green" technological breakthrough that probably won't occur in the near future, coal-based energy will remain more economically competitive than renewable energy for quite a while.

    And economic success is measured in terms of long-term economic growth and productive capacity, other measurements are subjective personal preferences (not that valuing "economic success" is an objective standard, merely an eminently practical one that provides individuals ever-increasing means of pursuing all of their subjective wants and preferences).

    Finally, while there is plenty of waste (which should be remedied) taking place within the "military-industrial complex", maintaining a strong military is a highly effective means of pursuing war OR peace, depending on the nature of the governments and society in question. Also, while peace is generally preferable, some circumstances make war a better option, though I suppose that's really a thread unto itself.

    In any event, how about addressing my cost-benifits analysis concerns, in which I maintain that the policies in question represent economically crippling measures toward only marginal gains at best, and are wasteful and counter-productive at worst?

  3. #33
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    renewable energy is based a little more on macro (global) cost benefit analysis, more than micro(firm view) cost benefit analysis.

    the richer country you are, the more "big brother" of a type of responsibility you have to the rest of the "little brothers" of the world when it comes to global warming, etc...

  4. #34
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    renewable energy is based a little more on macro (global) cost benefit analysis, more than micro(firm view) cost benefit analysis.

    the richer country you are, the more "big brother" of a type of responsibility you have to the rest of the "little brothers" of the world when it comes to global warming, etc...
    I'm convinced the second coming of Jesus wont be about saving mankind from its sins or war, the second coming will be the death of, and liberation from, the man made global warming hoax and the ignorance that plagues humanity. I can only pray that Jesus is real.

    In other words, we will never do anything that makes sense in this area until people stop believing in sci-political fallacies like global warming that give them justification to do things that make absolutely no sense based on a false view of reality. Because of this, the issue truly is barely worth discussing. Possibly, the only thing that will allow a critical mass of people to come to their senses is more or less a full realization of the global warming policies which will culminate in an eventual degradation of the human condition and widespread dissatisfaction in the majority of the population. At that point the political machinery will be forced to modify its stance on global warming, and a full revelation of the actual science behind it will come leading to a final demise of the man made GW myth.

    This, again, assumes that ignorance and the government environmental control agenda will prevail over truth in the near term.

Similar Threads

  1. A Quick Guide To Double-Checking Your Type
    By VagrantFarce in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 215
    Last Post: Yesterday, 06:33 AM
  2. Knowing that you are about to die
    By Grand Admiral Crunch in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-01-2017, 04:51 AM
  3. CISPA: Your Private Information Are Belonging To Us!
    By Rail Tracer in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-02-2012, 10:10 PM
  4. Is there a favorite TV show of yours that you are addicted to?
    By aesor in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2011, 01:17 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Do do do your dirty words come out to play when you are hurt?
    By Billy in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 02:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO