Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 02, 2012

OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call.  However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

 

Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 37 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 35 36 37 38 39 >  Last ›
   3601. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:54 AM (#4195599)
But 1993 was widely known as a tax increase, and 1997, 2001, and 2003 as tax cuts. From looking at the receipts as % of GDP, 1993 and 2001 had a big, sustained, impact, and 1997 and 2003 was a minor blip at best. But 1997 and 2003 were MEANT to be tax cuts. Of course the CBO is going to forecast a revenue decrease. Unless we're all living in Lafferland now, where tax cuts equal revenue increases, usually the point of a tax cut is for revenues to go down. If the bills were meant to be that way, of course they are going to forecast that way, otherwise they wouldn't have passed the bill. 1997 and 2003 were Republican bills anyway, so why would "left-leaning" projections have anything to do with it? And you haven't addressed 1993. Are you saying the CBO forecast a revenue decline with that bill?

You conflated a lot of issues here. It's S.O.P. for Republicans to justify tax cuts on the grounds that such cuts will lead to economic growth and a net increase in tax revenue. There's often been an inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues, a lesson the CBO has been slow to learn.
   3602. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:05 AM (#4195603)
I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Even if this is true, what should the U.S. do about it?
There's something really slippery about that answer. For GW skeptics, they win both ways: Either it's not real so we shouldn't do anything about it, or it IS real but we shouldn't anything about it.

I don't actually know what the right answer(s) is/are, but if GW is as real as Muller now agrees it is, then doing nothing is pretty much exactly the wrong answer.
   3603. Dan The Mediocre Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:37 AM (#4195607)

You conflated a lot of issues here. It's S.O.P. for Republicans to justify tax cuts on the grounds that such cuts will lead to economic growth and a net increase in tax revenue. There's often been an inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues, a lesson the CBO has been slow to learn.


This is entirely incorrect. The relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is pretty close to linear for any tax rate we've experienced in the last 100 years.
   3604. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 07:53 AM (#4195619)
Even if this is true, what should the U.S. do about it?


Show some world leadership? Not drag our feet, but rather join with those countries who will get on board and begin to pressure those that are not - you know like we do with a ton of things.
   3605. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 08:28 AM (#4195630)
Even if this is true, what should the U.S. do about it?

Or, as you say, absolutely nothing, letting powerless people pay for our excesses that we know are doing damage to them - a truly ethical and moral path.
   3606. Ron J2 Posted: July 30, 2012 at 08:35 AM (#4195631)
Even if this is true, what should the U.S. do about it?


A few years back the Economist to a look at the serious suggestions as to what can be done now and attempted to price them (well somebody else had done the heavy lifting -- forget the source). About a third turned out to have minimal costs overall (though many would create new winners and losers). Some around 10% were in the "let's not and roll the dice" range. The rest ranged from expensive to extremely expensive.

Wish I had saved the article or could find it online, but there's been a fair number of "What can be done now" articles and the Economist frequently references them and attempts to do a cost/benefit analysis.
   3607. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 08:37 AM (#4195633)
There's something really slippery about that answer. For GW skeptics, they win both ways: Either it's not real so we shouldn't do anything about it, or it IS real but we shouldn't anything about it.


There's nothing "slippery" about that. The slippery part, of course, is pretending that such a response would be slippery.
   3608. CrosbyBird Posted: July 30, 2012 at 08:43 AM (#4195636)
There's something really slippery about that answer. For GW skeptics, they win both ways: Either it's not real so we shouldn't do anything about it, or it IS real but we shouldn't anything about it.

I'm sure that's true, but merely asking the question doesn't make you some sort of anti-science freak with your head in the ground. There are things that are undeniable: there is a measurable change in climate, and humans are contributing to this change. The amount that humans contribute is far from settled right now.

Even if we get to "humans are the primary force behind GW," there's still a number of questions to be answered.

1) Is there anything we can do to stop or reduce our contribution? The answer to this is almost certainly yes.

2) Does the benefit of stopping or reducing our contribution justify the direct expense? This is the hardest question. We're dependent on the behavior that causes the problem. We'd need to make some major sacrifices to switch to alternate power sources; are those sacrifices worth it?

3) Does the benefit justify the indirect expense? Imagine that the US develops energy technology tomorrow that completely removes our dependence on foreign oil. It's likely that the economy of the larger oil-producing countries collapses. Faced with that sort of threat, it could mean war. Similarly, the attempt to coerce countries like China and India to stop might be enough of a threat to their economies to lead them to war as well.

I think this is a problem that we're not going to be able to solve until it's big enough that the whole world is seeing direct and undeniable consequences (perhaps the need to evacuate coastal cities because of flooding, or a food crisis because temperatures get high enough to harm crop production, or something similar). It's the sort of problem that is going to require massive cooperation on a global scale, and it may not be possible to get that type of cooperation without some sort of planetary government (and we're not there yet).
   3609. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 08:51 AM (#4195640)
It's S.O.P. for Republicans to justify tax cuts on the grounds that such cuts will lead to economic growth and a net increase in tax revenue.


It's also S.O.P. for flat-earthers and Biblical Literalists to justify ignoring climate change because "God won't let that happen." Both S.O.P.s are categorically removed from reality and ignorant beyond words. It's not 1979 any more.
   3610. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 08:57 AM (#4195643)
CB - #3608. The eventual effects of unchecked environmental indifference will certainly be war and strife. If your answer is that human beings aren't able to get beyond questions of and war over finances and the free market for the benefit of the population, ultimately you're saying we have about as much control over our destinies as any other animal. All the human philosophy and all the fantasies about our intellectual superiority over cockroaches and black labs are pretty much for naught at that point.
   3611. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 09:24 AM (#4195661)
All the human philosophy and all the fantasies about our intellectual superiority over cockroaches and black labs are pretty much for naught at that point.


*gold star*
   3612. CrosbyBird Posted: July 30, 2012 at 09:36 AM (#4195669)
The eventual effects of unchecked environmental indifference will certainly be war and strife. If your answer is that human beings aren't able to get beyond questions of and war over finances and the free market for the benefit of the population, ultimately you're saying we have about as much control over our destinies as any other animal. All the human philosophy and all the fantasies about our intellectual superiority over cockroaches and black labs are pretty much for naught at that point.

Hey, I wouldn't go that far.

I do think that we're very much like all other animals in the sense that we are reactive rather than proactive creatures. Hundreds of thousands of years of struggle have left their genetic toll; we are competitive organic machines in the here and now and I don't think we've been long enough in the modern world to have shaken off the very urges that led us to beat out the primates that didn't reproduce.

Our intelligence allows us to recognize the problem happening outside of our geography and our chronology, but only to some degree, and like objects on the horizon, non-local problems seem to be smaller than they are in actuality. I don't know that we could possibly have survived as individuals without developing (or more likely, simply maintaining) some sort of "problem myopia"; you're worrying about how the next village is going to eat if you steal their food while they're busy planning to steal yours.

I also think individuals are very capable of getting over this issue if those individuals have the luxury of a struggle-free existence, but not otherwise. We can type on our computers about the sacrifices we should be making because we're confident that they aren't survival/reproductive sacrifices. If we're actually going to pay a real cost (as in, we stop this behavior to save the planet, but in exchange, a number of people die from otherwise preventable conditions, and we aren't insulated from those costs), then I think it becomes a much harder question.

If the only way to stop GW were to engage in a war that killed a billion people, would it be worth it? If a billion is too high, what number isn't? I think these are important questions to answer.
   3613. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4195695)
If the only way to stop GW were to engage in a war that killed a billion people, would it be worth it? If a billion is too high, what number isn't? I think these are important questions to answer.


Crosby, I have a lot of respect for the intelligence and thoughtfulness with which you state your opinions. But why would we indulge a stupid hypothetical instead of the real questions? Look what happened in this thread. We have right-wingers here who went from "global warming is not real" to "global warming is real but not manmade" to "global warming is real and manmade but STFU there's noting we can do about it", without recognizing that their own refusal to accept what science has been telling us for two decades is part of the reason we haven't been able to do anything about it. You don't have to cut off the head to defeat the problem-- for example, moving more quickly to more fuel efficient vehicles (not necessarily electric or hybrids) would be a good step, but any attempt to do something that non-drastic is met with "OMG UR RAPING TEH FREE MARKETS". When the US, which been the leader in carbon emissions, won't even undertake small steps that indicate it's taking the problem seriously, how can we expect others to engage in any sort of serious response to the problem? The right-wing has been insane on this issue, and now they're acting like the problem hasn't gotten worse as a result of their steadfast refusal to remove their heads from their asses.

The transition from "there's no such thing as global warming" to "there's global warming but there's nothing we can do about it" is just a restatement of their original policy position that nothing should be done to address the problem. Small steps are part of the solution, not part of the problem. Right-wingers are now trying to claim the opposite, because they've stonewalled all the small steps anyone has tried to take on the issue.
   3614. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4195701)
*gold star*

I would hope that you were starring the conditional that IF we can't get by those base competitive natures then the intellectual superiority is a fantasy. I think we're capable of better.

However, as you seem to spend time drinking whiskery sours...
   3615. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4195740)
Even if this is true, what should the U.S. do about it?

Show some world leadership? Not drag our feet, but rather join with those countries who will get on board and begin to pressure those that are not - you know like we do with a ton of things.


and that doesn't remotely answer the question

what should be done?
a global tax on carbon?
massive investment in non-carbon spewing energy research?
massive investment in research into how to re-sequester carbon?
and many others
   3616. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4195741)
The right-wing has been insane on this issue


Their leaders have been quite sane from a short-term personal interest POV.
   3617. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4195746)
There's often been an inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues


What is a right-wing meme that has no connection to actual reality?

   3618. Shredder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4195774)
What is a right-wing meme that has no connection to actual reality?
More likely in the '60s when the top marginal rate was cut from 90% to 70%. Remember how Eisenhower was totally a socialist?
   3619. zonk Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4195813)
More likely in the '60s when the top marginal rate was cut from 90% to 70%. Remember how Eisenhower was totally a socialist?


I thought he was a communist? Or was that just most of his administration? Who knows, though, with McCarthy, could have just been the bourbon talking...

BTW - After Mitt found the Anglo-Saxons to be not such special friends after all, Romney v9.5 has decided to go with lavish praise for Israel-- like its nationalized health care system:

"When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation," Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. "We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."


If Mitt's down with an Israeli-style system, I'm cool with that...
   3620. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4195839)
"When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation," Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. "We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."


The mind boggles.

What. A. Tool.

   3621. zonk Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4195851)

The mind boggles.

What. A. Tool.


In the same speech, he also explained that 'culture' is the reason that Israel's GDP is twice that of the Palestinians (he got the numbers wrong - he put it at 2-1, it's more like 20-1).... which actually manages to offend both Palestinians (whom I guess he intended to offend) and Israelis with the old 'boy, you folks are good with money!' cliche...

If there's any way Mitt can extend his trip...
   3622. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4195855)
I used to think that Romney was a smart guy who just sucked at politics. I'm starting to think he's just a dumbass.
   3623. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4195862)
We have right-wingers here who went from "global warming is not real" to "global warming is real but not manmade" to "global warming is real and manmade but STFU there's noting we can do about it",


Where did this sequencing happen? In your head?
   3624. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4195865)
I used to think that Romney was a smart guy who just sucked at politics. I'm starting to think he's just a dumbass.

Well, that's what's just so jaw-dropping about this. There are two, and only two, explanations for him to publicly say what he's saying here about health care:

a) He is dumber than a solid redwood fencepost

or

b) He is spectacularly hypocritical, even for a politician

Although I suppose both could be true.
   3625. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4195866)
Where did this sequencing happen? In your head?

Right or wrong, I think he extrapolated Joe's "if it WAS true, so what" conditional (in whatever post that was) to be that sequence.

However, as long as you're here, you're still anti-science on this whole thing, I guess? Any other science you'd like to dispute? Penicillin vs. bleeding the humors, perhaps?
   3626. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4195867)
This is entirely incorrect. The relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is pretty close to linear for any tax rate we've experienced in the last 100 years.

Except, of course, for all the times that cutting tax rates led to a net increase in tax revenue.

***
We have right-wingers here who went from "global warming is not real" to "global warming is real but not manmade" to "global warming is real and manmade but STFU there's noting we can do about it",

Unsurprisingly, this is incredibly dishonest. No one's position here has changed. I simply accepted the premise as stated and replied to it.

Reading liberal commentary about global warming is a reminder of how naive they are about basic things like reality and human nature. Before 9/11, U.S. jetliners flew around with flimsy $10 doors protecting the cockpit. Before Katrina, a single U.S. city — which was located below sea level in a hurricane zone — couldn't come up with anything resembling an efficient disaster plan. But now liberals expect the entire world to agree to drastically reduce its standard of living in order to ward off hypothetical adverse effects some 25 or 50 or a hundred years down the road. It's comical. A world that can't band together to eliminate abject poverty or homelessness sure as hell can't "solve" global warming (or climate change, or whatever they're calling it this week).

It's also interesting how liberals' objection to "regressive" taxes suddenly goes out the window when it comes to climate change. Unless they expect "the rich" to buy billions of Priuses and solar panels for poor people, the poorest people would get hit the hardest by the "solutions" proposed by liberals.
   3627. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM (#4195875)
Well, that's what's just so jaw-dropping about this. There are two, and only two, explanations for him to publicly say what he's saying here about health care:

a) He is dumber than a solid redwood fencepost

or

b) He is spectacularly hypocritical, even for a politician

Although I suppose both could be true.


or c) he was speaking to Israelis and knows that absolutely no one back in the US whose vote is honestly undecided will notice.
   3628. zonk Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4195879)
b) He is spectacularly hypocritical, even for a politician


I'll take b)...

On foreign policy, I think a big part of his problem is that he's essentially 'outsourced' foreign policy to same pool that gave us the aughts...

   3629. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4195881)

or c) he was speaking to Israelis and knows that absolutely no one back in the US whose vote is honestly undecided will notice.

Which would fall into the (b) category.
   3630. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4195882)
We have right-wingers here who went from "global warming is not real" to "global warming is real but not manmade" to "global warming is real and manmade but STFU there's noting we can do about it",

Where did this sequencing happen? In your head?
No, in an NYT op-ed piece by one of the most well-known GW skeptics in the world, and in CB's subsequent reply. Are you not keeping up with the thread?
   3631. zonk Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4195884)
Except, of course, for all the times that cutting tax rates led to a net increase in tax revenue.


Are we talking marginal rates or effective rates?
   3632. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4195886)
We have right-wingers here
No, in an NYT op-ed piece by one of the most well-known GW skeptics in the world, and in CB's subsequent reply. Are you not keeping up with the thread?

Did you miss the word "here"? (And Crosby's not a "right-winger.")
   3633. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4195890)
Except, of course, for all the times that cutting tax rates led to a net increase in tax revenue.


See, this nicely illustrates the problem of arguing about this. I can cite a number of studies that have looked at this question that illustrate the ways in which this statement is at best misleading and at worst just outright false. However, Joe will disparage either the studies or the people conducting the studies as part of a liberal conspiracy. Since it's an article of faith, it's nearly pointless for me to argue about this, since Joe will ignore any contradictory evidence.

Just from a first principles point of view: if lowering tax rates actually increased revenue, then yes, everyone would be on board. Clearly we need more revenue. I don't have a high attachment to higher tax rates as a matter of self-evidently good public policy. I have an attachment to public policy that effectively increases revenue. Higher tax rates on the top tax bracket is the lowest hanging fruit to encourage this--it's politically popular, raises a good amount of revenue and would disrupt economic recovery less than any other revenue generating policy.
   3634. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4195897)
if lowering tax rates actually increased revenue, then yes, everyone would be on board

Plus, we'd be living in magicland. It would be awesome!
   3635. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4195899)
Show some world leadership? Not drag our feet, but rather join with those countries who will get on board and begin to pressure those that are not - you know like we do with a ton of things.


Does answer in context of what was asked. It was in response to the statement (paraphrasing) well other nations like China won't do anything anyway, so there is no point inthe US unilaterally doing anything. It was not intended to be a full on climate change treatise.
   3636. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4195901)
Unsurprisingly, this is incredibly dishonest. No one's position here has changed.
We're not talking about you or Ray or CB, we're talking about Richard Muller, who started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to disprove global warming and ended up not only convinced that it is happening, but that the change is anthropogenic.

Reading liberal commentary about global warming is a reminder of how naive they are about basic things like reality and human nature.
This is why we can't have nice things, like civil discussions.
   3637. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4195905)
No, in an NYT op-ed piece by one of the most well-known GW skeptics in the world, and in CB's subsequent reply. Are you not keeping up with the thread?


I am, and what formerly dp wrote was "We have right-wingers here who <etc>."

   3638. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4195909)
if lowering tax rates actually increased revenue


There are some special cases where this does happen. It has happened with Capital Gains taxes and similar items where you can hold over your investment gains until such time as the rate lowers and then quick cash in while the rate is low. It is couponing for the insanely wealthy.

Basically though it doesn't really happen at any current rates seen in the US under normal circumstances.
   3639. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4195911)
Just from a first principles point of view: if lowering tax rates actually increased revenue, then yes, everyone would be on board.

I never remotely suggested that lowering taxes always resulted in a net increase in tax revenue. That's absurd. All I did was point out three specific examples of the CBO's projections being wrong.

***
We're not talking about you or Ray or CB, we're talking about Richard Muller, who started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to disprove global warming and ended up not only convinced that it is happening, but that the change is anthropogenic.

Richard Muller is a member of BBTF? 'formerlydp' alleged that "we have right-wingers here" who have flip-flopped on climate change.
   3640. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4195913)
Reading liberal commentary about global warming is a reminder of how naive they are about basic things like reality and human nature.

This is why we can't have nice things, like civil discussions.


Especially since all the examples that followed had almost nothing to do with Liberal anything. Unless the naive bit was expecting humans to not be shortsighted, but that is kind of the point of being progressive. Progress, get better, learn from your mistakes and keep improving. Not "wow that problem I was denying exists, but it is really big. I give up."
   3641. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4195916)
I never remotely suggested that lowering taxes always resulted in a net increase in tax revenue. That's absurd. All I did was point out three specific examples of the CBO's projections being wrong.


Okay. The purpose of the CBO is not to tell the future. It's to provide a impartial rubric to score congressional bills so that the American people can judge the potential cost of legislation on a comprehensive and coherent framework. The CBO missed on the tech boom, they missed on the great recession and they most likely will miss on the next large, unexpected economic event. That's not really a very good criticism of them.
   3642. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4195917)
or c) he was speaking to Israelis and knows that absolutely no one back in the US whose vote is honestly undecided will notice.

But why even bring up the point about health care? Or suggest that Israel has a good economy because of culture? The former doesn't really help in Israel, and the latter might offend Jews and Palestinians.
   3643. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4195919)
And include me in the group amazed that Romney can't be in a country ten minutes without pissing everyone off. How do you manage to anger both Isrealies and Palistinians with the same comments? It is a gift.

I don't know if we have mentioned it yet or not, but I am also amused by the Bush book (he didn't write it all, but it is associated with him and has his name on it I think) about how to get 4% economic growth. Dude you were president for eight years and for much of it had enough juice to get what you wanted done (especially post 9/11), and you turned the economy into crap. So who would ever buy this book? Just amazing.

EDIT: FWIW - We got ~2% growth in his eight years and a truly spectacular melt down at the end.
   3644. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4195921)
Especially since all the examples that followed had almost nothing to do with Liberal anything. Unless the naive bit was expecting humans to not be shortsighted, but that is kind of the point of being progressive.

I didn't claim cockpit doors or Katrina planning were liberal issues. The point was, when humanity has had little success solving relatively small, obvious problems, it's patently absurd to expect humanity to band together, across ~200 national borders, to solve the biggest problem known to humanity (i.e., if liberal climate-change claims are correct).

***
The purpose of the CBO is not to tell the future. It's to provide a impartial rubric to score congressional bills so that the American people can judge the potential cost of legislation on a comprehensive and coherent framework. The CBO missed on the tech boom, they missed on the great recession and they most likely will miss on the next large, unexpected economic event. That's not really a very good criticism of them.

Those are some very big misses.

If the CBO's mission isn't to predict the future, then the CBO should flatly decline to do so. Otherwise, churning out 10-year projections that end up being off by 1,000 percent succeed only in undermining its credibility.
   3645. Kurt Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4195925)
Just from a first principles point of view: if lowering tax rates actually increased revenue, then yes, everyone would be on board.

--------

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.


   3646. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4195928)
We have right-wingers here


This is what you wrote:
Even if this is true, what should the U.S. do about it? It would be idiotic for the U.S. to undertake the environmental equivalent of unilateral disarmament. Without all of the world's major economies getting on board, anything the U.S. does would be futile. (And make no mistake: Developing countries aren't going to sacrifice their improving standard of living in 2012 to help prevent the Earth's temperature from possibly rising by 2 degrees by 2050.)


What you've done is set up a scenario where, once you finally come around to admitting what the rest of the world has long since accepted, you've insulated the US from any sort of culpability both in causing global warming and addressing it. The US bears the biggest burden for taking steps to correct the problem, because the US has been the biggest contributor to its existence. But what you've done in your post is say that the US should not do anything, because developing countries will embrace the same spoiled child attitude right-wingers in this country have been proudly displaying since the conversation started.

But now liberals expect the entire world to agree to drastically reduce its standard of living in order to ward off hypothetical adverse effects some 25 or 50 or a hundred years down the road.


Again, if you were willing to engage on the issue a decade ago, we would have already started taking small steps to curb emissions. Small steps won't get us all of the way there, but they're better than the current anti-science-induced paralysis we've had so far.

And the "adverse effects" are not hypothetical. We've already started to see the consequences of global warming. I know it's hard to accept when you label everything that ##### with your narrative "ideology", but the small-scale effects are already here.
   3647. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4195933)
The point was, when humanity has had little success solving relatively small, obvious problems, it's patently absurd to expect humanity to band together, across ~200 national borders, to solve the biggest problem known to humanity (i.e., if liberal climate-change claims are correct).
Nobody's talking about banding humanity together tomorrow, that's crazy. What's sane is changing American energy policies in light of continuing research.

I mean, ####, if you're just going to point at a problem, say it's too big, and just shrug your shoulders, why're you constantly railing against spending? America's had little success reining in small, obvious spending problems, it's patently absurd to expect the country to band together to solve the biggest fiscal problem since the Great Depression... right?

You'd disagree with that because it's stupid to continue with bad policy. Existing energy policy is bad policy. Arguing that it should continue because the problem's too big is just arguing for continuing to follow bad policy.
   3648. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4195934)
Regarding Romney's comparison of the Israeli and Palestinian economies, from this article:

both Israelis and Palestinians argued that Romney misunderstood the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“It seems to me [Romney] lacks information, knowledge, vision, and understanding of this region and its people,” Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, told The Associated Press. “He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves.”

Even Israelis themselves thought the statement could have been more artful and cognizant of the nuances of the age-old conflict. “I might have put it a bit differently,” Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., told the Daily Beast. “There’s no doubt about Israel’s economic achievement over the years, but I would not compare that to the Palestinian economy because obviously the Palestinian economy operates under different conditions.”


To be sure, in the grand scheme of the US Presidential election, this won't be impactful. But the purpose of this trip (along with collecting $$) is to demonstrate what a smooth cultivator of US allies a President Romney would be, and instead so far Romney has demonstrated a remarkable klutziness.
   3649. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4195937)
if liberal climate-change claims are correct
Good criminy.

If Joe is going to take every post by an individual leftish person here and turn it into a strange soliloquy on the nature of the left, I'll take his leave to do the same here.

There seems to be no such thing as truth for the right anymore. If an issue is a matter of political disagreement, there is no way of adjudicating that disagreement other than announcing the team you play for. The CBO scores something against my team? The CBO is liberal, truth is relative, expertise and methodology are just smokescreens for team identity. A consensus emerges among the scientists who study climate change? All the scientists are liberal, truth is relative, expertise and methodology are smokescreens for team identity.
   3650. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4195939)
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased
This isn't true.
   3651. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4195946)
There seems to be no such thing as truth for the right anymore.

That's the only way to go if you're committed to ideology and dogma. It's about faith, it isn't about knowledge.
   3652. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4195949)
I am, and what formerly dp wrote was "We have right-wingers here who <etc>."

I'm not involved in that particular debate, but I am still curious if you continue to be adamantly anti-science regarding the issue. Thoughts?
   3653. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4195952)
What you've done is set up a scenario where, once you finally come around to admitting what the rest of the world has long since accepted, you've insulated the US from any sort of culpability both in causing global warming and addressing it. The US bears the biggest burden for taking steps to correct the problem, because the US has been the biggest contributor to its existence.

If the "rest of the world has long since accepted" the liberal theory on climate change, then why is there any need for U.S. leadership? Why haven't developing economies imposed draconian regulations on so-called dirty energy? Why is gas 10 cents per liter in Venezuela instead of $5? Why hasn't Mexico banned 1980s gas guzzlers from its roads? Why haven't dozens of countries banned private planes from their airspace?

Again, if you were willing to engage on the issue a decade ago, we would have already started taking small steps to curb emissions. Small steps won't get us all of the way there, but they're better than the current anti-science-induced paralysis we've had so far.

Ah, the old "small steps" argument. If the liberal elites care so much about this, why do they still jet around in private planes? Why do they have 50,000-square-foot mansions (or even 3,000-square-foot homes) and gas-guzzling Bentleys and limos? Hell, why do they have cars at all?

There's nothing stopping liberals from sending in extra money in taxes — but they don't. There's nothing stopping liberals from drastically reducing their "carbon footprint" via a drastically reduced standard of living — but they don't. If "small steps" are so important, how come the elites are always waiting for other people to make the first sacrifices? Why haven't people like Al Gore and George Clooney and Leonardo DiCaprio been shamed out of polite left-wing society for jetting around the globe in their private planes?
   3654. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4195955)
If Joe is going to take every post by an individual leftish person here and turn it into a strange soliloquy on the nature of the left, I'll take his leave to do the same here.

Why are liberals so squeamish about the use of the word "liberal"? I didn't believe it was remotely controversial to describe climate change as a liberal issue.
   3655. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4195958)
I didn't believe it was remotely controversial to describe climate change as a liberal issue.

It isn't controversial. What it is is stupid.
   3656. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4195967)
It isn't controversial. What it is is stupid.

Oh, well, that changes my whole opinion. I guess I'll walk 10 miles to the mall now to partially offset the effects of George Clooney's next private-jet trip from Los Angeles to Italy. We're all in this together!
   3657. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4195973)
Why are liberals so squeamish about the use of the word "liberal"?

No more squeamish than you are at the increasing evidence the liberals are correct on this issue.

What do you personally think about the claim that humans are affecting climate change and the planet negatively, and we could therefore also change it positively?
   3658. Spahn Insane Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4195978)
Steve can speak for himself, but I read 3655 to say that it's stupid that only liberals appear concerned about climate change (or even to acknowledge it). Do you disagree? (EDIT: Coke to Lassus.)

And your sweeping diversions about "liberal elites" (and snide dismissal of "small steps") notwithstanding, plenty of non-elite people (myself included) have changed (if not "drastically reduced") their standards of living (given up cars, etc.), in part out of concern over their carbon footprints. You're substituting a diversionary caricature of people you disagree with for actually engaging their arguments.
   3659. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4195979)
If the CBO's mission isn't to predict the future, then the CBO should flatly decline to do so. Otherwise, churning out 10-year projections that end up being off by 1,000 percent succeed only in undermining its credibility.


The CBO projections are not supposed to be fortellings. They're supposed to be a consistent rubric that you can use to judge policy. Some gimmicks are introduced due to the form of CBO projections (ACA's 10 year timeframe with a 4 year implementation delay is a great example), but it also is really helpful for informing the nation. The CBO projections aren't supposed to be, "THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN." Rather, it's a simple statement of, if things go on roughly like how they have for the last 30 years or so, this is what we can reasonably expect.

Since lawmakers are also notoriously poor predictors of the future, the CBO helps us to understand what we can likely expect from proposed legislation. You want to throw that out because they, like the rest of the world, cannot predict unpredictable events. That is not a good idea.


Re: Capital Gains:
Gibson's claim isn't exactly true. In addition, the Capital Gains rate is different from other rates in that people can choose, in part, when to pay the tax. Further, not all parts of capital gains are the same. Eliminating the carried interest exception, for example, would almost certainly simply result in increased revenue (a small amount to be sure). I think that the best policy is setting a minimum rate and not allowing CG to artificially deflate the tax rate of very wealthy people. This is (I think) the primary policy that Obama has proposed. It has been judged likely to raise revenue.
   3660. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4195986)
I didn't claim cockpit doors or Katrina planning were liberal issues. The point was, when humanity has had little success solving relatively small, obvious problems, it's patently absurd to expect humanity to band together, across ~200 national borders, to solve the biggest problem known to humanity (i.e., if liberal climate-change claims are correct).


so, we should all give up about doing anything about anything?

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased
This isn't true.


To be more granular, just discussing capital gains taxes:

1: People can pick and choose (to some extent) when to pay capital gains taxes, because they can pick and choose when to sell. If you are planning on selling eventually, and you know next year the tax rate is going up, you are obviously going to sell now rather than a year from now. So tax revenues will go up the year before the rate increases and down the year the rate increases because people are adjusting WHEN they sell.

2: If you know the tax rate is going down you will hold onto your stocks a bit longer.

3; If rates are high investors may be more inclined to sell off losing stocks- to deduct against gains.

So most of any inverse correlation between capital gains rates and capital gains tax revenue is affected by this - lowering rates leads (short term) to a revenue increase because sales are suppressed in the period before the rate decrease and tend to spike afterwards, raising rates does the inverse.

If you ignore the effect on buying/selling activity produced by the change in rates, long term raising rates will raise revenues, lowering rates will lower revenue (you also have to realize that there is an interaction with income tax rates- the higher capital gains rates are there is an incentive not only to not sell, but to pull profits out via salaries or dividends, if capital gains rates are really low the incentive for insiders is to receive lowers cash salaries, and pull out money via cash and stock dividends. So low capital gains rates also may also lead to lower income tax revenues, and higher capital gains rates to higher income tax revenues.


Generally speaking with virtually all other taxes, raising rates raises revenue, lowering rates lowers revenue.


   3661. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4195988)
What do you personally think about the claim that humans are affecting climate change and the planet negatively, and we could therefore also change it positively?


The first half of that claim is childish. Even if we're affecting climate change "negatively," that is being done in the furtherance of people leading good and worthy lives. I don't accept the liberal premise that this is a bad thing. And we're part of the planet, just like any other species or natural force on the planet.

The second half of the claim sounds very romantic - "we could therefore also change it positively" - but it utterly avoids the issue of the cost of changing it. If it's only a small cost, the changes aren't likely to do any good - global warming being such a Big OMIGOD Problem and all - and if it's a large cost, then there's a greater chance that the cost won't be worth it.

And why do "we" - as the U.S. - have to take the lead in this? Let other countries lead, and we'll see if we want to follow. That's what so many other countries do to us, after all. We've led plenty of causes around the world, and it's high time for other countries to take the lead and assume the cost.
   3662. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4195991)
I didn't believe it was remotely controversial to describe climate change as a liberal issue.


It is absolutely not a liberal issue

1: It's a scientific issue

2: To the extent it is a political issue, it is a rightwing one- as the rightwingers have taken a scientific issue and rammed it into their political worldview
   3663. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4195992)
If the "rest of the world has long since accepted" the liberal theory on climate change, then why is there any need for U.S. leadership? Why haven't developing economies imposed draconian regulations on so-called dirty energy? Why is gas 10 cents per liter in Venezuela instead of $5? Why hasn't Mexico banned 1980s gas guzzlers from its roads? Why haven't dozens of countries banned private planes from their airspace?


It's not a liberal theory, first of all. It's a scientific theory that US liberal accept in greater numbers than US conservatives. That's not the same thing. [edit: cokes} The US right wing is actively holding up conversations about addressing the issue-- it's "the US vs the world" in talks on taking steps to reduce emissions. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Ah, the old "small steps" argument. If the liberal elites care so much about this, why do they still jet around in private planes? Why do they have 50,000-square-foot mansions (or even 3,000-square-foot homes) and gas-guzzling Bentleys and limos? Hell, why do they have cars at all?


Is this really the best you've got? The "limousine liberal" argument? Yes, individuals can and have changed consumption habits on their own. But "why are liberals still driving cars" can be answered really easily-- because conservatives have fought like hell against providing any sort of alternatives. I live in a deeply conservative part of the country, and every attempt to improve infrastructure for bikes (relatively cheap, compared to actually adding better public transit) is treated as part of the culture war-- liberals* are asking for bike lanes because they want to take a small step, and conservatives fight even that on ideological grounds. You don't get to stonewall every attempt to address the issue and the say "why haven't you guys addressed the issue?" (well, that's precisely what you'll do, but we get to call you out on it).

There's nothing stopping liberals from sending in extra money in taxes — but they don't.


You guys already lost this debate with the health care thing. It's really not necessary to have it again.

*It's not just liberals, a lot of it is the fact that there are a lot of suburban poor who can't afford cars, but we like to pretend those people don't exist.
   3664. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4195994)
If it's only a small cost, the changes aren't likely to do any good - global warming being such a Big OMIGOD Problem and all - and if it's a large cost, then there's a greater chance that the cost won't be worth it.


Through a series of small changes, we've mostly eliminated the threat of heavy sulphur buildup. Why do you think that doing the same thing to Carbon that we did to sulphur emissions is ineffective or too expensive?
   3665. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4195995)
Steve can speak for himself, but I read 3655 to say that it's stupid that only liberals appear concerned about climate change (or even to acknowledge it).

Yes, that U.S. conservatives have by and large surrendered themseleves to know-nothingness on this issue has been an act of grand stupidity. And to continue, in 2012, to "describe climate change as a liberal issue" is doubling down on the stupid.

And your sweeping diversions about "liberal elites" (and snide dismissal of "small steps") notwithstanding, plenty of people (myself included) have changed (if not "drastically reduced") their standards of living (given up cars, etc.), in part out of concern over their carbon footprints.

My wife and I sure have, in many ways, including our choices of cars and how much we drive them, and our choices regarding household heating/cooling, lighting and appliances. Our behavior is distinctly different than it was five, ten, or 20 years ago.

We're hardly saintly in this regard, but the blanket characterization of "liberals" as all-talk-no-action hypocrites on climate change and environmental issues generally is -- well, you know what it is.
   3666. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4195996)
No more squeamish than you are at the increasing evidence the liberals are correct on this issue.

I'm not squeamish about it at all. In business, being correct means nothing unless you can monetize it. In politics, being correct means nothing unless there's a feasible real-world solution. And as I said above, even if everything liberals claim about climate change is correct, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that 7 billion people will agree to drastically reduce their standard of living in order to avert a hypothetical adverse effect some 25 or 50 or 100 years down the road.
   3667. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4195997)
And your sweeping diversions about "liberal elites" (and snide dismissal of "small steps") notwithstanding, plenty of non-elite people (myself included) have changed (if not "drastically reduced") their standards of living (given up cars, etc.), in part out of concern over their carbon footprints.


I will gladly say that I have not changed my standard of living one bit in furtherance of this poli-cultish nonsense. But ALL of the people claiming that we have a big problem on our hands that Needs To Be Solved should have already done just that, and drastically, and years ago. No individual needs treaties, or the U.S.'s money in the pot, in order to take action with respect his or her own lifestyle.
   3668. Kurt Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4195998)
Re: Capital Gains:
Gibson's claim isn't exactly true.


I didn't post Gibson's excerpt to establish the truth of his assertions, I posted it to rebut the proposition that everyone would be on board with lowering tax rates if it actually increased revenue. If that were true then Obama's response would have been "Charlie, that's not true". This is not a criticism of Obama; he's a politician and it's good politics to advocate higher taxes on the rich with increased revenues as a secondary-at-best consideration.
   3669. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4195999)
The first half of that claim is childish. Even if we're affecting climate change "negatively," that is being done in the furtherance of people leading good and worthy lives. I don't accept the liberal premise that this is a bad thing.

No, Ray. What you don't accept is the SCIENTIFIC premise that it's a bad thing. Liberal premise my ass.


And we're part of the planet, just like any other species or natural force on the planet.

Um. So?


The second half of the claim sounds very romantic - "we could therefore also change it positively" - but it utterly avoids the issue of the cost of changing it. If it's only a small cost, the changes aren't likely to do any good - global warming being such a Big OMIGOD Problem and all - and if it's a large cost, then there's a greater chance that the cost won't be worth it.

See #3605 and #3610 about ethics and morals.


And why do "we" - as the U.S. - have to take the lead in this? Let other countries lead, and we'll see if we want to follow. That's what so many other countries do to us, after all. We've led plenty of causes around the world, and it's high time for other countries to take the lead and assume the cost.

This seriously sounds like something a spoiled 11-year-old would write. I absolutely trust from your previous narratives you were not this at 11. But you certainly seem to be one now.
   3670. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4196001)
You don't get to stonewall every attempt to address the issue and the say "why haven't you guys addressed the issue?" (well, that's precisely what you'll do, but we get to call you out on it).

Remarkably similar to the dynamic regarding the Republicans in Congress vs. Obama regarding doing things to actually assist the economy.

Coincidence? You decide!
   3671. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4196002)
I'm not squeamish about it at all. In business, being correct means nothing unless you can monetize it. In politics, being correct means nothing unless there's a feasible real-world solution. And as I said above, even if everything liberals claim about climate change is correct, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that 7 billion people will agree to drastically reduce their standard of living in order to avert a hypothetical adverse effect some 25 or 50 or 100 years down the road.

So, the answer is do nothing and let someone else sort it out later. Again, morals and ethics.


I will gladly say that I have not changed my standard of living one bit in furtherance of this cultish nonsense.

Anti-science, faith, bloodletting, etc.


EDIT:
And as I said above, even if everything liberals claim about climate change is correct, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that 7 billion people will agree to drastically reduce their standard of living in order to avert a hypothetical adverse effect some 25 or 50 or 100 years down the road.
What is even more ridiculuous and cultish about this is that it wasn't 7 billion people acting in concert that got us here, so the argument that 7 billion people can't do anyhting now OH WELL THE MARKETS is simply adolescent.
   3672. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4196009)
I didn't post Gibson's excerpt to establish the truth of his assertions, I posted it to rebut the proposition that everyone would be on board with lowering tax rates if it actually increased revenue. If that were true then Obama's response would have been "Charlie, that's not true". This is not a criticism of Obama; he's a politician and it's good politics to advocate higher taxes on the rich with increased revenues as a secondary-at-best consideration.


This rebuttal would have more substance if Obama actually agreed that raising rates would reduce revenue from cap. gains. There's no upside in arguing with Charlie Gibson and explaining a nuanced point on TV.
   3673. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4196010)
2: To the extent it is a political issue, it is a rightwing one- as the rightwingers have taken a scientific issue and rammed it into their political worldview


Sorry, but the issue of what to do, if anything, is a political one. That's why the politicians are involved.

Did you think a bunch of Manhattan upper west side elites had the power to band together, implement new laws for the US, and bind the US into a treaty?
   3674. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4196011)
And why do "we" - as the U.S. - have to take the lead in this? Let other countries lead, and we'll see if we want to follow.


Because historically speaking, the US is the single biggest carbon emitter. The rest of the world is living with the climate change that the US induced. I don't know why you're pretending this doesn't matter. The numbers below are after China's huge spike, and might tell you a bit about why the US matters in all of this.

2010 carbon emissions

China
8,240,958 Emissions
9,640,821 Area in KM2
1,339,724,852 Population
6.2 Per capita emissions

US
5,492,170 Emissions
9,826,675 Area in KM2
312,793,000 Population
17.6 Per capita emissions
   3675. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4196013)
This seriously sounds like something a spoiled 11-year-old would write. I absoluteyl trust from your previous narratives you were not this at 11. But you certainly seem to be one now.

Ray can speak for himself, but this is nonsense. If, as 'formerlydp' claims, "the rest of the world has long since accepted" the liberal theory on climate change, then why hasn't the rest of the world taken the lead in imposing draconian restrictions on dirty energy? How come China and Brazil and Russia and India haven't seized the moral and environmental high ground? Usually, the rest of the world can't wait to show the U.S. how much better and smarter it is, so how come no major economy wants to be the first mover on this?
   3676. Randy Jones Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4196015)
And we're part of the planet, just like any other species or natural force on the planet.


99.9% of all species to ever exist are now extinct. Many of us would like to delay humanity joining that group for as long as possible. Apparently you wouldn't.
   3677. Spahn Insane Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4196017)
No individual needs treaties, or the U.S.'s money in the pot, in order to take action with respect his or her own lifestyle.

A huge overgeneralization, particularly where transportation options are concerned. While I agree that people should make what lifestyle choices they can make to minimize their environmental impact, you can't just ignore that a long series of policy choices have made it very difficult and more expensive for a lot of people to do so. See 3663, para. 2.

Of course, when you view all of human life and the earth itself as an abstraction, it's easy to view it with such cartoonish simplicity, I suppose.
   3678. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4196020)
One more, Ray:
Even if we're affecting climate change "negatively," that is being done in the furtherance of people leading good and worthy lives. I don't accept the liberal premise that this is a bad thing.

So I guess you also don't accept the premise that people taking out loans and mortgages they couldn't pay back in the furtherance of people living good and worthy lives is a bad thing?


   3679. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4196022)
But ALL of the people claiming that we have a big problem on our hands that Needs To Be Solved should have already done just that, and drastically, and years ago.
I've traded in my old cars for newer, fuel-efficient cars. I've installed power-saving surge protectors, turn off the power to the house if we're out for more than a few days, cut down on A/C use, etc. But I'm just pissing in the wind because you're not on board, and that's why policy's important.

You don't get to stonewall every attempt to address the issue and the say "why haven't you guys addressed the issue?" (well, that's precisely what you'll do, but we get to call you out on it).
It's a lot easier taking shots at rich liberals than it is to deal with the science of the issue.
   3680. Spahn Insane Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4196024)
What is even more ridiculuous and cultish about this is that it wasn't 7 billion people acting in concert that got us here, so the argument that 7 billion people can't do anyhting now OH WELL THE MARKETS is simply adolescent.

Lassus, how can you blithely ignore that every bit of legislation ever passed did so by unanimous consent (and not just unanimous consent of the elected representatives, but of the governed!)!
   3681. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4196025)
So, the answer is do nothing and let someone else sort it out later. Again, morals and ethics.


Why is this immoral and unethical, in your view? It's like you're a... spoiled 11-year-old who doesn't understand that "do nothing" is a perfectly legitimate and rational choice. And in fact it may be better than all the other choices.

There are some streets in New York that really need to be repaved. WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS NOW? Why are we DOING NOTHING and letting someone else sort it out later??!?!?!!

Could the answer be... cost?
   3682. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4196027)
The rest of the world is living with the climate change that the US induced. I don't know why you're pretending this doesn't matter.

LOL. You know what the "rest of the world" looked like before "dirty" U.S. innovations like factories and cars? The "rest of the world" has made out quite nicely.
   3683. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4196032)
I've traded in my old cars for newer, fuel-efficient cars. I've installed power-saving surge protectors, turn off the power to the house if we're out for more than a few days, cut down on A/C use, etc. But I'm just pissing in the wind because you're not on board, and that's why policy's important.

How much money have you sent to Mexico or India to help poor people in those places do the same things? Because it doesn't really matter what 300 million Americans do if 6.7 billion other people aren't doing the same things.
   3684. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4196033)
Before: Almost all climate scientist agree humans causing global warming. Many summits to deal with problem. A huge issue is the US refusing to go along. This gives cover to China and others to not go along. Summits go nowhere.

Now: OK we finally agree with all those climate scientists, but why should the US take leadership, why haven't the other nations in the world done so?

Yes, it is a puzzle.
   3685. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4196035)
Ray can speak for himself, but this is nonsense. If, as 'formerlydp' claims, "the rest of the world has long since accepted" the liberal theory on climate change, then why hasn't the rest of the world taken the lead in imposing draconian restrictions on dirty energy? How come China and Brazil and Russia and India haven't seized the moral and environmental high ground? Usually, the rest of the world can't wait to show the U.S. how much better and smarter it is, so how come no major economy wants to be the first mover on this?


Why are you pretending that this isn't happening?

And for #########, it's not a liberal theory. It's a scientific theory that you're labeling as liberal because you disagree with it. Bill McKibben makes precisely this point about the conservative narrative on climate change-- you guys have this caricature of concern over the issue being driven by liberal elites, where privilege is what allows liberals to be concerned, but it's precisely the opposite. Climate change will hit the poorest nations of the world hardest-- those who are impoverished already will be the ones most victimized by interruptions to the global food supply. And we're seeing that they're the ones most concerned with the issue-- not liberal elites, but everyday people in developing nations who are going to suffer because of decades of western excess, who are not "liberal" or "conservative". Climate scientists do not map neatly onto the idiosyncratic US conservative/liberal political spectrum. It doesn't get more true just because you keep saying it.
   3686. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4196037)
Sorry, but the issue of what to do, if anything, is a political one. That's why the politicians are involved.


I was responding to something from JK who helpfully later wrote this: " the liberal theory on climate change"

there is no "liberal theory on climate change"

there are scientific theories on climate change

there are also wingnut conspiracy theories that a liberal climate change conspiracy exists (and yes you Ray are one of the wingnuts on this issue, so I'm not really talking to you since you are irrational on this specific issue)

and there is also a political issue regarding what, if anything to do regarding climate change, and some of those sides may be fairly characterized as "liberal" and some may be characterized as conservative, and some as technocratic and some bureaucratic, etc ad nauseum.

But the ONLY people who see solely a "liberal" issue are the nutters on the right.

   3687. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4196038)
You know what the "rest of the world" looked like before "dirty" U.S. innovations like factories and cars? The "rest of the world" has made out quite nicely.


AKA: playing the "white man's burden" card. Damn Joe, you are busting out the oldies today.
   3688. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4196045)
Climate scientists do not map neatly onto the idiosyncratic US conservative/liberal political spectrum.


You address this to Joe, but, speaking for myself, I've never once claimed that they do, or that scientists are "liberal."

What I've claimed is that scientists are driven by other motivations, such as funding: a scientist who says "nothing to see here, global warming is not a problem" is likely to get no funding. Which is not to say that the scientists are All Lying. I've never made that claim either. But I don't see why a scientist who might be good at identifying a problem is also good at identifying solutions to that problem, solutions which involve, inter alia, weighing the costs and political dynamics involved in solving that problem.

Where liberalism comes into play is that liberals never contemplate that doing nothing may be a perfectly legitimate and appropriate response to a problem. Liberals always want to see money changing hands, always want to see behavior or lifestyle alterations forced on to people. Sex and abortion excepted.
   3689. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4196050)
There are some streets in New York that really need to be repaved. WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS NOW? Why are we DOING NOTHING and letting someone else sort it out later??!?!?!!
Could the answer be... cost?

The cost of people with your rabidly anti-science view actually listening to and then promoting the science as valid is exactly zero. I'm happy to let your beloved market take care of the rest.
   3690. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4196051)
There are some streets in New York that really need to be repaved. WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS NOW? Why are we DOING NOTHING and letting someone else sort it out later??!?!?!!

Could the answer be... cost?



Come on, work a little harder on the analogies will ya.

No, not all roads that need to be re-paved are re-paved immediately, but some are, and some are patched, and some will be re-paved next year, or the year after that, but some roads in need of re-paving are in fact being re-paved as we blog.

Want to analogize road repaving in NYC to global warming- try this:

No roads are being repaved, no money is being spend by NYC to repave, the mayor wants to raise taxes to hire workers and equipment to repave, but the Ray of Light party says, "no, there is no problem the roads do not need to be re-paved"

Years pass, the condition of the roads gets so bad that some private individuals have taken to filling potholes near their properties, but that's a tiny drop in the bucket of what is needed, the mayor again wants to raise taxes to hire workers and equipment to repave, buy the Ray of Light party says, "no, there is no problem the roads do not need to be re-paved, and to the extent there are small localized problems, well the people in those small and localized areas should deal with it, out of their own pockets"

More years pass, the roads have gotten so bad that people have given up using them, no more vehicular traffic in the city except for off-road vehicles, everyone else is either forced out of the city or onto the subways- and the Ray of Light party says, see we were right there was no problem, we didn't need paved roads anyway.
   3691. CrosbyBird Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4196052)
The transition from "there's no such thing as global warming" to "there's global warming but there's nothing we can do about it" is just a restatement of their original policy position that nothing should be done to address the problem. Small steps are part of the solution, not part of the problem. Right-wingers are now trying to claim the opposite, because they've stonewalled all the small steps anyone has tried to take on the issue.

I'm not a right-winger so I can't speak for them.

I'm in favor of taking steps to lower our contribution to climate change. The science is pretty clear on the idea that it's happening, that we contribute, and that it may lead to some serious consequences. What bothers me is how the issue always appears to be framed without perspective: either people look only at the potential costs of action, or people look only at the potential costs of inaction. It's how pretty much all political issues are framed.

I strongly believe that the science (at least, the science that trickles down to us) has been corrupted by the ideology, and that we don't really have a good idea of how much damage we're doing, how we could stop it if we wanted to, and what price we'd have to pay to significantly change what's happening. Until we can come up with a reasonable and objective measure of the costs, it's going to be a very difficult sell to most people. It's hard to take a request to turn off your AC seriously if the restaurant down the street is running full blast with all the windows open.
   3692. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4196053)
there are also wingnut conspiracy theories that a liberal climate change conspiracy exists (and yes you Ray are one of the wingnuts on this issue, so I'm not really talking to you since you are irrational on this specific issue)


I never once claimed, implied, or suggested any "liberal conspiracy," so you're either lying or you're believing the press clippings put out on me by our BBTF liberal elite.

What I've claimed is that people will see what they want to see. Liberals see climate change as a problem that MUST BE SOLVED -- with money and regulations that place heavy burdens and restrictions on people and societies. That is not a conspiracy, but a worldview.

(And, frankly, many conservatives also see climate change as a problem to be "solved," so I don't know why people here are pretending otherwise.)

---

As for scientists, we've seen their self interest in things such as the "hide the decline" emails. And to claim that scientists have no self interest would be an irrational claim indeed. The notion that scientists are objective and pure as the driven snow is as much a fantasy as anything else the BBTF liberals are pimping here.
   3693. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4196057)
Climate scientists do not map neatly onto the idiosyncratic US conservative/liberal political spectrum. It doesn't get more true just because you keep saying it.

I've never claimed only liberals believe in climate change. I've claimed that it's almost exclusively liberals who believe that climate change can be "slowed" or "solved" or "reversed" without a draconian impact on the world's standard of living. It can't, at least not with our existing technology and existing energy sources.
   3694. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4196058)
What I've claimed is that people will see what they want to see. Liberals see climate change as a problem that MUST BE SOLVED

Must be addressed is not the same as must be solved. You can't even bear to have the ####### thing taken into consideration in your own daily life, as you already said.


It can't, at least not with our existing technology and existing energy sources.

Because if conservatives have shown one thing on this issue, it's a concrete knowledge of science.
   3695. Shredder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4196062)
a scientist who says "nothing to see here, global warming is not a problem" is likely to get no funding.
You're kidding, right? Where is this fantasy world you live in where huge fossil fuel companies which earning billions of dollars in profits have no money to give scientists to "discover" that warming isn't the result of excess carbon in the atmosphere? Furthermore, if a "liberal" scientist was motivated by grant money to find conclusions that his "liberal" government masters desire, what would be the motivations of the scientist providing peer review? Is it all just a big liberal scientific conspiracy? Do even think about what you write before you write it?
Where liberalism comes into play is that liberals never contemplate that doing nothing may be a perfectly legitimate and appropriate response to a problem. Liberals always want to see money changing hands, always want to see behavior or lifestyle alterations forced on to people.
You're absolutely pathetic.
   3696. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4196064)
What I've claimed is that scientists are driven by other motivations, such as funding: a scientist who says "nothing to see here, global warming is not a problem" is likely to get no funding. Which is not to say that the scientists are All Lying. I've never made that claim either. But I don't see why a scientist who might be good at identifying a problem is also good at identifying solutions to that problem, solutions which involve, inter alia, weighing the costs and political dynamics involved in solving that problem.


Which is it-- are the climate scientists all blatant careerists, or they're just unqualified to identify solutions? You're making both critiques simultaneously, because neither stands on its own.

For someone who has such blind faith in markets-- the other cornerstone of modernity-- I find it strange that you outright reject not just science in this one instance but the whole infrastructure of scientific enterprise. The scientific method is a technique for enabling useful and reliable knowledge-production. It can be wrong, paradigms can shift, truths can be overturned. But the assumption is that the method will vindicate results above all else, even in the face of the inevitable self-interested actor. The scientific method is fundamentally conservative precisely to restrict the ability of bad actors to taint the reliability of its findings.
   3697. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4196066)
What I've claimed is that people will see what they want to see. Liberals see climate change as a problem that MUST BE SOLVED -- with money and regulations that place heavy burdens and restrictions on people and societies. That is not a conspiracy, but a worldview.


Again, the primary solution proposed as legislation has been cap and trade. This is the exact same system that was proven to be very effective and cost almost nothing with sulfur emissions.

Why do you think that cap and trade for carbon is so different from sulfur?
   3698. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4196071)
Again, the primary solution proposed as legislation has been cap and trade. This is the exact same system that was proven to be very effective and cost almost nothing with sulfur emissions.

The idea that only "polluters" and not consumers pay for "cap and trade" is funny. Why don't you care about poor people?
   3699. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4196076)
The idea that only "polluters" and not consumers pay for "cap and trade" is funny. Why don't you care about poor people?


So where's the CPI spike after sulfur became regulated? Because we saw it during the oil crisis of the 70's.

Please explain why carbon C&T is different than sulfur.
   3700. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4196077)
I used to think that Romney was a smart guy who just sucked at politics. I'm starting to think he's just a dumbass.


Mitt Romney has literally never had to be diplomatic in his entire life. His childhood was a cloistered existence of the upper classes where he was beloved and allowed to run free as he liked (within the bounds of his family's requirements.) His business experience is limited *entirely* to venture capital from the 80s and 90s. He's never had a position in the private sphere where he was president or CEO, or as GWB put it, "the decider."

There's this idiotic notion that's taken as an article of faith on the right that high level "business leaders" are the perfect POTUS candidates, which ignores completely the fact that the Presidency of a bicameral system in a democratic republic is absolutely nothing like the neo-feudal decision tree politics of a modern American corporation.

Mitt Romney is terrible at politics because he, like GWB before him, went straight from life as the cloistered dauphin of the family empire to the "fail upward" model of "success" in modern corporate America, where his word was law. The stupidity here is in believing that that sort of personal history in any way qualifies a candidate for the presidency in our government.
Page 37 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 35 36 37 38 39 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(14 - 4:03am, Dec 18)
Last: baerga1

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(3 - 2:42am, Dec 18)
Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(643 - 2:32am, Dec 18)
Last: Howling John Shade

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(8 - 1:46am, Dec 18)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(34 - 1:31am, Dec 18)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(74 - 1:04am, Dec 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(27 - 12:37am, Dec 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogThe Dan Shaughnessy Hall Of Fame Ballot
(58 - 12:17am, Dec 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(6 - 12:08am, Dec 18)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogSource: Myers to Padres in 11-player deal with Rays, Nats | MLB.com
(3 - 11:39pm, Dec 17)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4535 - 11:24pm, Dec 17)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(294 - 10:55pm, Dec 17)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9148 - 10:39pm, Dec 17)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(11 - 8:58pm, Dec 17)
Last: escabeche

NewsblogIndians sign Gavin Floyd to deal
(9 - 8:37pm, Dec 17)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

Page rendered in 0.7950 seconds
48 querie(s) executed