|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 01 2014 22:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 01 2014 06:50 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
oh, I wasn't trying to argue that everyone agrees that all inequality is bad. even I, as a certified "leftist" think that not all inequality is bad. But I really think that everyone can agree that the gross global inequality we see today IS bad. That's what I'm trying to say, really not everybody thinks that. Obviously, there is some good in inequality for motivation and distinction (in fact, I think a lack of inequality between the poor and middle class today causes social unrest). However, some ALWAYS see it and treat it as the outcome of a (mostly) fair system. Really? There are people who think it's good that hundreds of millions of people live lives in hopeless poverty and starvation? I'm not talking about inequality in the west here - I understand that there are people who believe that every poor american is to blame for it themselves, but I've never seen anyone who thinks that the ethiopian child who starves to death at the age of 5 is to blame for his own undoing, this is just considered like, somewhere between a current inevitability and a tradeoff they are willing to make, but I've never seen anyone argue that this is actually like, fine/ideal. I can agree that many downplay this aspect because it becomes hard to justify current political action (but then I think it's far more common for people to be like johnny; the current system while it produces some inequalities that are bad, it does a better job than any other tried system and it does actually cause progress even for the poor starving ethiopian. ) And I think that's fair enough. I don't personally agree, but I don't think that this opinion is downright immoral - I think me and johnny's differing opinions relate more to our perception of what currently happens, what causes this and how the future is likely to be if we continue down the road we're currently paving, rather than us having different opinions on whether starving african children are bad or not. Anyway, to expand a little on what inequality I personally think is good; Me and my older brother are people with nearly identical social backgrounds and skillsets. Yet, we are very different in what we want out of life. He cares much more about material wealth, or rather, about having top of the line products, be it food, wine, clothing, whatever. So he has been working probably about twice as many hours as me for the past decade, and he has also made about twice as much money. I think this, that me and him have the options to pursue different life paths depending on how we want our lives to be, is good. Even with him consistently making about twice as much as me for the past decade, I think this is entirely fair, he has also worked much harder, and I also make enough to make myself happy - but where I am certainly more limited economically than he is. This inequality, where I can directly see that what he wants out of life motivates him to work harder than I personally want to, is good. If, however, he was making five times as much as me, this would from my perception be both wasteful (he certainly has enough now) and unjust (he's working harder than me for sure - but certainly not five times as hard). And this would be the type of inequality I oppose politically, where I think there's a big discrepancy between what I consider just/fair and reality, and where I would consider his wealth accumulation to be wasteful. I admit, it would be hard to find somebody that was fine with kids dying at 5 due to starvation and/or preventable disease, but they usually find a way to justify it as a failure of the third world government. You have to understand, I'm surrounded by people that think this, so it's not as shocking, and I get to hear lots of justification. As for your personal anecdote, not a lot of people would disagree with that or call it unfair. Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 13:31 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. "One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns...But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism... I missed this earlier. Please, enlighten me how our consumption pattern is somehow at odds with Earth's natural resources. Show me the "obvious" data that backs up your claim. "The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world." Source"in 2008 the Earth's total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. However, Mankind's Ecological Footprint - what was actually consumed - was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person." SourcePS: Don't bother wasting a post undermining the sources unless you have some counter examples please. The precision of the measures is not the most pressing issue either. So attacking nuances in measurements is relatively pointless without presenting the alternative measures and how they significantly change the interpretation. So, we take "excess" consumption (at least in your view) and extrapolate it across the entire world and call it "unsustainable." This conclusion is probably inline with a 3rd grader's analysis. There's no adjustments based on complex statistical findings, like price adjustments to scarcity or incentives to increase efficiency of resource utilization that go along with it. It's the same "overpopulation" arguments we've been hearing for decades that were proven to be false when we analyzed population growth rates in developed and developing countries and noticed there is a birthrate drop-off. Now there's another boogieman, big surprise.
It is not the "excess" of consumption generalized to the world that is unsustainable, it is the current consumption. I'm really amazed at people who refuse to see what's before them and who continue to argue : what we are talking about is not the world and its realities, but your view on it and your desire in regard to its state.
For exemple, social unrest is caused by the lack of inequalities between the middle class and the lower class, and not because of the inequalities between the 99 % and the 1 % ? Americans never understood the word class by the way..
More specifically, on the subject of the sustainability of our consumption, there are plenty of work. After Solow's paradigme on economic growth, economists tried to introduce environmentals constraint in their models of growth. What they wanted to evaluate was the idea of sustainability, or more exactly if it was possible for consumption not to decrease in the long run, belong an optimal trajectory of the economy (= the best possible), taking into consideration the fact that some ressources are exhaustible (oil mainly ?).
The first answer that economists came up with (Dasgupta and Heal, 1974, here) was that it was possible, only if the average productivity of the exhaustible natural ressource was boundless when the quantity of exhaustible ressources came close to zero. After that, Stiglitz and Hartwick models gave similar answers, more or less (Stiglitz insisting on innovations, and Hartwick on capital substitutions). The basis is that, in all those works, and despite a complete disdain for natural ressource (considered as stocks that gives no utility at all to humanity, and thus that are only needed for production), neoclassical economy (closer to tea party than anything) explains that our consumption is sustainable only if we are somehow able to reach a constant technical progress that equalize the level of consumption of natural ressources (i'm simplifying but it's that more or less) - completly impossible. It is not Malthus, where a simple increase in productivity was needed.
|
On April 02 2014 04:05 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 22:47 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 01 2014 06:50 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
oh, I wasn't trying to argue that everyone agrees that all inequality is bad. even I, as a certified "leftist" think that not all inequality is bad. But I really think that everyone can agree that the gross global inequality we see today IS bad. That's what I'm trying to say, really not everybody thinks that. Obviously, there is some good in inequality for motivation and distinction (in fact, I think a lack of inequality between the poor and middle class today causes social unrest). However, some ALWAYS see it and treat it as the outcome of a (mostly) fair system. Really? There are people who think it's good that hundreds of millions of people live lives in hopeless poverty and starvation? I'm not talking about inequality in the west here - I understand that there are people who believe that every poor american is to blame for it themselves, but I've never seen anyone who thinks that the ethiopian child who starves to death at the age of 5 is to blame for his own undoing, this is just considered like, somewhere between a current inevitability and a tradeoff they are willing to make, but I've never seen anyone argue that this is actually like, fine/ideal. I can agree that many downplay this aspect because it becomes hard to justify current political action (but then I think it's far more common for people to be like johnny; the current system while it produces some inequalities that are bad, it does a better job than any other tried system and it does actually cause progress even for the poor starving ethiopian. ) And I think that's fair enough. I don't personally agree, but I don't think that this opinion is downright immoral - I think me and johnny's differing opinions relate more to our perception of what currently happens, what causes this and how the future is likely to be if we continue down the road we're currently paving, rather than us having different opinions on whether starving african children are bad or not. Anyway, to expand a little on what inequality I personally think is good; Me and my older brother are people with nearly identical social backgrounds and skillsets. Yet, we are very different in what we want out of life. He cares much more about material wealth, or rather, about having top of the line products, be it food, wine, clothing, whatever. So he has been working probably about twice as many hours as me for the past decade, and he has also made about twice as much money. I think this, that me and him have the options to pursue different life paths depending on how we want our lives to be, is good. Even with him consistently making about twice as much as me for the past decade, I think this is entirely fair, he has also worked much harder, and I also make enough to make myself happy - but where I am certainly more limited economically than he is. This inequality, where I can directly see that what he wants out of life motivates him to work harder than I personally want to, is good. If, however, he was making five times as much as me, this would from my perception be both wasteful (he certainly has enough now) and unjust (he's working harder than me for sure - but certainly not five times as hard). And this would be the type of inequality I oppose politically, where I think there's a big discrepancy between what I consider just/fair and reality, and where I would consider his wealth accumulation to be wasteful. I admit, it would be hard to find somebody that was fine with kids dying at 5 due to starvation and/or preventable disease, but they usually find a way to justify it as a failure of the third world government. You have to understand, I'm surrounded by people that think this, so it's not as shocking, and I get to hear lots of justification. As for your personal anecdote, not a lot of people would disagree with that or call it unfair. On April 01 2014 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 13:31 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say.
[quote]
First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil.
Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too!
I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be.
So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.)
And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. "One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns...But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism... I missed this earlier. Please, enlighten me how our consumption pattern is somehow at odds with Earth's natural resources. Show me the "obvious" data that backs up your claim. "The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world." Source"in 2008 the Earth's total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. However, Mankind's Ecological Footprint - what was actually consumed - was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person." SourcePS: Don't bother wasting a post undermining the sources unless you have some counter examples please. The precision of the measures is not the most pressing issue either. So attacking nuances in measurements is relatively pointless without presenting the alternative measures and how they significantly change the interpretation. So, we take "excess" consumption (at least in your view) and extrapolate it across the entire world and call it "unsustainable." This conclusion is probably inline with a 3rd grader's analysis. There's no adjustments based on complex statistical findings, like price adjustments to scarcity or incentives to increase efficiency of resource utilization that go along with it. It's the same "overpopulation" arguments we've been hearing for decades that were proven to be false when we analyzed population growth rates in developed and developing countries and noticed there is a birthrate drop-off. Now there's another boogieman, big surprise. It is not the "excess" of consumption generalized to the world that is unsustainable, it is the current consumption. I'm really amazed at people who refuse to see what's before them and who continue to argue : what we are talking about is not the world and its realities, but your view on it and your desire in regard to its state. For exemple, social unrest is caused by the lack of inequalities between the middle class and the lower class, and not because of the inequalities between the 99 % and the 1 % ? Americans never understood the word class by the way..
We don't have such a long history of it compared to France. What matters to a lot of Americans isn't so much the size gap, but rather that the gap exists. (Starcraft II analogy time!)
+ Show Spoiler +Think of how the Starcraft II ladder is set up now. We have 7 leagues, bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, master, and grandmaster. We have roughly even distribution between those leagues (except GM). This gives good incentives for those in the lower leagues to improve, and rewards them quite quickly if they put forth serious effort. It also helps those in mid-high leagues feel "superior" to those in the lower leagues, while pushing them to be part of the "prestigious" leagues. Those at the very top don't really care about leagues anyways, just a mastery of the game. People compare themselves to their peers and those directly above and below them.
If instead we changed the distribution of those leagues (ignoring GM) from the 20-20-20-20-18-2 into something more like 10 - 40 - 45 - 2.5 - 1.5 - 1. At the upper range of the scale, it's not that bad, you still have the elite and nearly elite having distinction between one another. However, at the lower scale, that changes. Of course, you still have your bad players down in bronze, but there's not that many and they noticeably have something seriously wrong or don't care all that much about getting better. But then there's the next 2 tiers that essentially grouped up 85% of the player base into 2 tiers. A lot of them know they aren't anywhere near the skill level of the top 2-4 tiers, but it weighs on the golds that they play so many silver players that seem so much worse, but are so close to their own level nominally. There's no clear distinction between 85% of the player base.
So that is what they ask for, distinction. Of course, the top (and near-top) is glorified and tries to keep out the riff-raff from the top leagues, they like their distinction. They suggest that more people should be put in bronze league since it would encourage them even more to get better, while telling those in silver/gold that all it takes is practice to make it into that top 1 / 2.5 / 5%. They write guides, give lessons, etc. to convince them that the fault is theirs, that they play poorly and need to get better to be prestigious. Truthfully, it's not their desire to be masters of the game, but to merely be recognized for the effort and skill that they do gain, so instead they lobby for more people to be put in bronze.
Admittedly, it's not a great metaphor, but it does examine the frame of mind.
|
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) warned Republicans Tuesday that they wouldn't have much of a chance with Latino voters until they could "get beyond" focusing on deportations and address immigration reform.
"We gotta get beyond deportation to get to the rest of the issues," he said at an event with conservatives, according to Politico.
Republicans have been critical of President Barack Obama's deportation record, sometimes calling the status quo "de facto amnesty" despite record removal numbers over recent years. That fixation on deportation of undocumented immigrants, and whether Obama can be trusted to enforce the law when they argue he currently refuses to do so, has become increasingly important as the House of Representatives stalls on immigration reform.
Paul has long urged Republicans to work on immigration reform, although he opposed the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last year. At one point, he even expressed openness to allowing undocumented immigrants eventually to become citizens -- although he didn't want to use the words "pathway to citizenship."
He said during his remarks Tuesday that the issue could be addressed this year if Democrats and Republicans were able to "meet in the middle." He said one area of agreement could be on worker visas.
The GOP has struggled with Latino voters in recent years, which has been partially attributed to the party's rhetoric and policies on immigration. Paul said that might continue if they can't get past the issue.
Source
|
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Florida's 2012 efforts to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls violated the National Voter Registration Act.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the state's efforts to remove non-citizens from the rolls violated the act's so-called "90 Days Provision," which requires states to “complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.”
A district court had previously entered a judgement in favor of Florida Secretary of State Kenneth Detzner, who has argued that the National Voter Registration Act either allows non-citizens to be removed from voter rolls at any time or not at all.
Under Detzner's watch, Florida undertook two separate efforts to identify and remove non-citizens from the state's voter rolls before the primary and general elections in 2012. Those efforts prompted lawsuits from individuals and organizations, as well as from the U.S. Justice Department. Among the plaintiffs in the case decided Tuesday were two people, Karla Arcia and Melande Antoine, who were identified as non-citizens who should be removed from the voter rolls but who were, in fact, U.S. citizens eligible to vote in 2012.
In its opinion, the court emphasized the "balance" struck by the 90 Day Provision.
Source
|
A triumphant President Barack Obama declared his signature medical insurance overhaul a success, saying it has made America's health care system 'a lot better.' But buried in the 7.1 million enrollments he announced in a heavily staged Rose Garden appearance is a more unsettling reality.
Numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggest that barely 858,000 previously uninsured Americans – nowhere near 7.1 million – have paid for new policies and joined the ranks of the insured by Monday night.
Others were already insured, including millions who lost coverage when their existing policies were suddenly cancelled because they didn't meet Obamacare's strict minimum requirements.
Still, he claimed that 'millions of people who have health insurance would not have it' without his insurance law.' source
|
The problem is that there are a lot of idiots out there who just aren't interested in paying for health insurance, so they don't do it, regardless of Obamacare. The difference is that, now, they aren't penalized for their poor decision because they can always get coverage for a preexisting condition when they need it.
|
On April 02 2014 05:15 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:05 WhiteDog wrote:On April 01 2014 22:47 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 01 2014 06:50 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
oh, I wasn't trying to argue that everyone agrees that all inequality is bad. even I, as a certified "leftist" think that not all inequality is bad. But I really think that everyone can agree that the gross global inequality we see today IS bad. That's what I'm trying to say, really not everybody thinks that. Obviously, there is some good in inequality for motivation and distinction (in fact, I think a lack of inequality between the poor and middle class today causes social unrest). However, some ALWAYS see it and treat it as the outcome of a (mostly) fair system. Really? There are people who think it's good that hundreds of millions of people live lives in hopeless poverty and starvation? I'm not talking about inequality in the west here - I understand that there are people who believe that every poor american is to blame for it themselves, but I've never seen anyone who thinks that the ethiopian child who starves to death at the age of 5 is to blame for his own undoing, this is just considered like, somewhere between a current inevitability and a tradeoff they are willing to make, but I've never seen anyone argue that this is actually like, fine/ideal. I can agree that many downplay this aspect because it becomes hard to justify current political action (but then I think it's far more common for people to be like johnny; the current system while it produces some inequalities that are bad, it does a better job than any other tried system and it does actually cause progress even for the poor starving ethiopian. ) And I think that's fair enough. I don't personally agree, but I don't think that this opinion is downright immoral - I think me and johnny's differing opinions relate more to our perception of what currently happens, what causes this and how the future is likely to be if we continue down the road we're currently paving, rather than us having different opinions on whether starving african children are bad or not. Anyway, to expand a little on what inequality I personally think is good; Me and my older brother are people with nearly identical social backgrounds and skillsets. Yet, we are very different in what we want out of life. He cares much more about material wealth, or rather, about having top of the line products, be it food, wine, clothing, whatever. So he has been working probably about twice as many hours as me for the past decade, and he has also made about twice as much money. I think this, that me and him have the options to pursue different life paths depending on how we want our lives to be, is good. Even with him consistently making about twice as much as me for the past decade, I think this is entirely fair, he has also worked much harder, and I also make enough to make myself happy - but where I am certainly more limited economically than he is. This inequality, where I can directly see that what he wants out of life motivates him to work harder than I personally want to, is good. If, however, he was making five times as much as me, this would from my perception be both wasteful (he certainly has enough now) and unjust (he's working harder than me for sure - but certainly not five times as hard). And this would be the type of inequality I oppose politically, where I think there's a big discrepancy between what I consider just/fair and reality, and where I would consider his wealth accumulation to be wasteful. I admit, it would be hard to find somebody that was fine with kids dying at 5 due to starvation and/or preventable disease, but they usually find a way to justify it as a failure of the third world government. You have to understand, I'm surrounded by people that think this, so it's not as shocking, and I get to hear lots of justification. As for your personal anecdote, not a lot of people would disagree with that or call it unfair. On April 01 2014 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 13:31 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument.
Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood.
Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. "One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns...But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism... I missed this earlier. Please, enlighten me how our consumption pattern is somehow at odds with Earth's natural resources. Show me the "obvious" data that backs up your claim. "The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world." Source"in 2008 the Earth's total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. However, Mankind's Ecological Footprint - what was actually consumed - was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person." SourcePS: Don't bother wasting a post undermining the sources unless you have some counter examples please. The precision of the measures is not the most pressing issue either. So attacking nuances in measurements is relatively pointless without presenting the alternative measures and how they significantly change the interpretation. So, we take "excess" consumption (at least in your view) and extrapolate it across the entire world and call it "unsustainable." This conclusion is probably inline with a 3rd grader's analysis. There's no adjustments based on complex statistical findings, like price adjustments to scarcity or incentives to increase efficiency of resource utilization that go along with it. It's the same "overpopulation" arguments we've been hearing for decades that were proven to be false when we analyzed population growth rates in developed and developing countries and noticed there is a birthrate drop-off. Now there's another boogieman, big surprise. It is not the "excess" of consumption generalized to the world that is unsustainable, it is the current consumption. I'm really amazed at people who refuse to see what's before them and who continue to argue : what we are talking about is not the world and its realities, but your view on it and your desire in regard to its state. For exemple, social unrest is caused by the lack of inequalities between the middle class and the lower class, and not because of the inequalities between the 99 % and the 1 % ? Americans never understood the word class by the way.. We don't have such a long history of it compared to France. What matters to a lot of Americans isn't so much the size gap, but rather that the gap exists. ( Starcraft II analogy time!) + Show Spoiler +Think of how the Starcraft II ladder is set up now. We have 7 leagues, bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, master, and grandmaster. We have roughly even distribution between those leagues (except GM). This gives good incentives for those in the lower leagues to improve, and rewards them quite quickly if they put forth serious effort. It also helps those in mid-high leagues feel "superior" to those in the lower leagues, while pushing them to be part of the "prestigious" leagues. Those at the very top don't really care about leagues anyways, just a mastery of the game. People compare themselves to their peers and those directly above and below them.
If instead we changed the distribution of those leagues (ignoring GM) from the 20-20-20-20-18-2 into something more like 10 - 40 - 45 - 2.5 - 1.5 - 1. At the upper range of the scale, it's not that bad, you still have the elite and nearly elite having distinction between one another. However, at the lower scale, that changes. Of course, you still have your bad players down in bronze, but there's not that many and they noticeably have something seriously wrong or don't care all that much about getting better. But then there's the next 2 tiers that essentially grouped up 85% of the player base into 2 tiers. A lot of them know they aren't anywhere near the skill level of the top 2-4 tiers, but it weighs on the golds that they play so many silver players that seem so much worse, but are so close to their own level nominally. There's no clear distinction between 85% of the player base.
So that is what they ask for, distinction. Of course, the top (and near-top) is glorified and tries to keep out the riff-raff from the top leagues, they like their distinction. They suggest that more people should be put in bronze league since it would encourage them even more to get better, while telling those in silver/gold that all it takes is practice to make it into that top 1 / 2.5 / 5%. They write guides, give lessons, etc. to convince them that the fault is theirs, that they play poorly and need to get better to be prestigious. Truthfully, it's not their desire to be masters of the game, but to merely be recognized for the effort and skill that they do gain, so instead they lobby for more people to be put in bronze. Admittedly, it's not a great metaphor, but it does examine the frame of mind.
Really you skip trying to provide any evidence of your previous claims and then present that?
Stop, think, and try again.
|
Just socialize the fucking healthcare geez.
Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated and financing goes into general revenues.
Reform tort laws while you do it.
Cut out the middle man insurance companies and HMO's.
Politically declare 300 million now have healthcare.
Budgetize it at 15% GDP falling .5% each year for 10 years to bring it in line with other OECD countries at 10%.
?????
Profit.
|
On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do, which was provide (a poor) attempt to undermine the information without providing any measures or reports of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution?
This is why it won't be unsustainable.
US energy mix changing over time:
+ Show Spoiler +
Price of solar falling over time:
+ Show Spoiler +
So on the energy front the US and other countries can switch to solar as fossil fuels become more dear. And that's how other resource constraints have and will play out as well. As a resource becomes scarce we find ways to overcome the scarcity, find substitutes and economize with what we still have.
The 'we're running out of resources' crowd isn't new. They've been around for a long time, and they keep getting proven wrong. Soylent Green may have made a good movie, but reality turned out different.
|
On April 02 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do, which was provide (a poor) attempt to undermine the information without providing any measures or reports of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution? This is why it won't be unsustainable. US energy mix changing over time: + Show Spoiler +Price of solar falling over time: + Show Spoiler +So on the energy front the US and other countries can switch to solar as fossil fuels become more dear. And that's how other resource constraints have and will play out as well. As a resource becomes scarce we find ways to overcome the scarcity, find substitutes and economize with what we still have. The 'we're running out of resources' crowd isn't new. They've been around for a long time, and they keep getting proven wrong. Soylent Green may have made a good movie, but reality turned out different.
Wait, what does that first graph show? Natural gas replacing oil and coal?
And what's that graph look like for the entire world?
|
Natural gas is replacing coal in the US and Canada. Around where I live, the power company is planning to retire coal plants within 25 years and replace them with gas-fired generation.
Gas is cheap, abundant, and quite a bit cleaner than coal.
I don't have any hard data for the rest of the world, but it wouldn't surprise me if China is approaching the limit of how much coal power they can install without killing everyone in Beijing from all the pollution.
|
On April 02 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do, which was provide (a poor) attempt to undermine the information without providing any measures or reports of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution? This is why it won't be unsustainable. US energy mix changing over time: + Show Spoiler +Price of solar falling over time: + Show Spoiler +So on the energy front the US and other countries can switch to solar as fossil fuels become more dear. And that's how other resource constraints have and will play out as well. As a resource becomes scarce we find ways to overcome the scarcity, find substitutes and economize with what we still have. The 'we're running out of resources' crowd isn't new. They've been around for a long time, and they keep getting proven wrong. Soylent Green may have made a good movie, but reality turned out different.
I had no idea conservatives were so bullish on Solar energy? From what I'm gathering you are suggesting solar energy is going to increase it's market share in the US around 20x what it is now? I know plenty of left leaners who would be so optimistic but again I had no Idea conservatives expected this to happen.
I feel like this is news that conservatives support their 'unlimited pie' model with expectations that oil and natural gas will make up less than 20% of the US market share in how many years is it that you expect there Johnny? 25,50, 75, 100?
You might want to tell your fellow conservatives this news so they can help get the message out about how viable and necessary it is to their world view.
|
Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$.
Anyways:
The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.
Source
|
My governor Told a family that they should buy pot off the street to get it for their children.
And my state senator got a 750k loan from the government and sent it to some mobsters out east.
Big lols on hobby lobby investing in pharm companies.
|
On April 02 2014 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do, which was provide (a poor) attempt to undermine the information without providing any measures or reports of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution? This is why it won't be unsustainable. US energy mix changing over time: + Show Spoiler +Price of solar falling over time: + Show Spoiler +So on the energy front the US and other countries can switch to solar as fossil fuels become more dear. And that's how other resource constraints have and will play out as well. As a resource becomes scarce we find ways to overcome the scarcity, find substitutes and economize with what we still have. The 'we're running out of resources' crowd isn't new. They've been around for a long time, and they keep getting proven wrong. Soylent Green may have made a good movie, but reality turned out different. I had no idea conservatives were so bullish on Solar energy? From what I'm gathering you are suggesting solar energy is going to increase it's market share in the US around 20x what it is now? I know plenty of left leaners who would be so optimistic but again I had no Idea conservatives expected this to happen. I feel like this is news that conservatives support their 'unlimited pie' model with expectations that oil and natural gas will make up less than 20% of the US market share in how many years is it that you expect there Johnny? 25,50, 75, 100? You might want to tell your fellow conservatives this news so they can help get the message out about how viable and necessary it is to their world view.
The problem is still that solar isn't there yet. Its getting there but it still doesn't make sense for someone to replace their home heating with solar panels instead of a wood stove or electricity from a natural gas or nuclear power plant.
The problem is that the left keeps pumping cash into solar when that money could be put to use in other energy sources like natural gas or paying people money for switching their heating system to something less polluting.
|
On April 02 2014 12:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do, which was provide (a poor) attempt to undermine the information without providing any measures or reports of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution? This is why it won't be unsustainable. US energy mix changing over time: + Show Spoiler +Price of solar falling over time: + Show Spoiler +So on the energy front the US and other countries can switch to solar as fossil fuels become more dear. And that's how other resource constraints have and will play out as well. As a resource becomes scarce we find ways to overcome the scarcity, find substitutes and economize with what we still have. The 'we're running out of resources' crowd isn't new. They've been around for a long time, and they keep getting proven wrong. Soylent Green may have made a good movie, but reality turned out different. I had no idea conservatives were so bullish on Solar energy? From what I'm gathering you are suggesting solar energy is going to increase it's market share in the US around 20x what it is now? I know plenty of left leaners who would be so optimistic but again I had no Idea conservatives expected this to happen. I feel like this is news that conservatives support their 'unlimited pie' model with expectations that oil and natural gas will make up less than 20% of the US market share in how many years is it that you expect there Johnny? 25,50, 75, 100? You might want to tell your fellow conservatives this news so they can help get the message out about how viable and necessary it is to their world view. The problem is still that solar isn't there yet. Its getting there but it still doesn't make sense for someone to replace their home heating with solar panels instead of a wood stove or electricity from a natural gas or nuclear power plant. The problem is that the left keeps pumping cash into solar when that money could be put to use in other energy sources like natural gas or paying people money for switching their heating system to something less polluting.
Solar will also never work in big swathes of the country. In Western New York where I live for example, we expect to get at least one more big snow storm before spring fully takes hold. Last summer, we had like 15 days that weren't overcast or outright rain.
But if the money that went into solar went into nuclear, we could totally have an LFTR here.
|
On April 02 2014 12:33 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 12:13 Sermokala wrote:On April 02 2014 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 09:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do, which was provide (a poor) attempt to undermine the information without providing any measures or reports of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution? This is why it won't be unsustainable. US energy mix changing over time: + Show Spoiler +Price of solar falling over time: + Show Spoiler +So on the energy front the US and other countries can switch to solar as fossil fuels become more dear. And that's how other resource constraints have and will play out as well. As a resource becomes scarce we find ways to overcome the scarcity, find substitutes and economize with what we still have. The 'we're running out of resources' crowd isn't new. They've been around for a long time, and they keep getting proven wrong. Soylent Green may have made a good movie, but reality turned out different. I had no idea conservatives were so bullish on Solar energy? From what I'm gathering you are suggesting solar energy is going to increase it's market share in the US around 20x what it is now? I know plenty of left leaners who would be so optimistic but again I had no Idea conservatives expected this to happen. I feel like this is news that conservatives support their 'unlimited pie' model with expectations that oil and natural gas will make up less than 20% of the US market share in how many years is it that you expect there Johnny? 25,50, 75, 100? You might want to tell your fellow conservatives this news so they can help get the message out about how viable and necessary it is to their world view. The problem is still that solar isn't there yet. Its getting there but it still doesn't make sense for someone to replace their home heating with solar panels instead of a wood stove or electricity from a natural gas or nuclear power plant. The problem is that the left keeps pumping cash into solar when that money could be put to use in other energy sources like natural gas or paying people money for switching their heating system to something less polluting. Solar will also never work in big swathes of the country. In Western New York where I live for example, we expect to get at least one more big snow storm before spring fully takes hold. Last summer, we had like 15 days that weren't overcast or outright rain. But if the money that went into solar went into nuclear, we could totally have an LFTR here.
If that money went to NASA we could be looking at orbital solar panels instead of ground level panels and get a whole bunch of nice Space products along the way.
|
On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: Show nested quote +The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source
Wow... talk about missing the mark 
Conservatives love the empowerment of the individual and state over federal expansion. Everything starts from there. Why do you think conservatives are so against the Obamacare?
|
On April 02 2014 13:19 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source Wow... talk about missing the mark Conservatives love the empowerment of the individual and state over federal expansion. Everything starts from there. Why do you think conservatives are so against the Obamacare?
because they are terrified that it will be another successful socialist program they wont be able to get rid off like social security and theyll never again win the presidency -- barring major democrat self destruction -- ?
|
On April 02 2014 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Conservatives love to bash the "Green Bubble" but love it secretly as makes them tons of money in taxes, subsidies etc. Prime example Texas where the world largest Solar Plants and Wind farms keep expanding. as it makes the ranchers $$$$. Anyways: Show nested quote +The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies. Source
"We don't want to provide insurance coverage for people who may get Plan B or other birth control options because that would be morally reprehensible. Buuuuut we sure don't mind profiting from it" (I'm paraphrasing)...
So apparently the problem is that they wont be making any money on the abortions, so that's why they don't want to provide insurance that covers them?
Or that when it comes to MAKING money it's not really a big deal if your supporting things you deem to be immoral/against your religion, it only matters when you're SPENDING money, which actually wouldn't surprise me. It fits right in with many conservatives world narratives.
Do conservatives see why people keep insinuating (sometimes not so subtly) that the major interests and informed people who push this kind of stuff are being disingenuous (to be nice) on a lot of issues?
*For more examples see: aks's dismissal of consumption issues or Johnny's "Miracle Pie" explanation using his stellar solar energy analysis(I have never seen a conservative so bullish on "Green Energy").
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.07.03/history.png)
![[image loading]](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-1.jpg)
