|
On September 26 2011 23:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 23:44 Mysticesper wrote:On September 26 2011 23:39 radiatoren wrote:Copenhagen - The European Union official in charge of the bloc's work on climate action expressed 'shock' over views expresssed in the United States on climate change, a news report said Monday.
'I am shocked that the US has a debate that is removed so far from scientific facts,' Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner for climate action, was quoted as telling Danish daily Politiken.
Hedegaard was referring to remarks expressed by some Republican presidential candidates that 'denied climate change.'
Against that backdrop, she said it was unlikely that the upcoming climate conference in Durban, South Africa, would result in a binding agreement on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
'We can read the political situtation in the US. The fact is, the US will not move before the Durban meeting,' she said.
Instead the 27-nation EU and other countries should prepare for unilateral reductions and the Durban meeting should attempt to secure 'a plan with deadlines where we can reach a binding treaty that includes both the US and China,' Hedegaard said.
In 2009, Hedegaard - then a Danish cabinet member - chaired part of the UN climate conference in her native Denmark that also failed to achieve a binding agreement on emissions. Having a thread about the Republican candidates, is there any difference in the views on this issue from the different candidates or is there just "science-fobia" on this subject from a general republican stance as it is claimed? Climate change / Global warming is viewed as a "liberal" standpoint. In order to appease the republican base, they move themselves away from it. There was such legislation / plans for "cap and trade" which republicans turned into "cap and tax" and so forth. Now we have these green companies failing after receiving government stimulus loans (another thing entirely). In the end, it is just politics as usual here -> both sides pandering to their base without accomplishing anything. Also, accepting evolution and other well-established scientific theories and facts is not something most Republican candidates are comfortable with. They usually sidestep those issues. It's probably a mix between their ignorance, the general ignorance of the American public, and the political fact that it sounds nice when they say "People should have the right to choose what they believe in". Of course, the truth isn't based on belief, and the facts will still remain the same whether or not you choose to accept them... but many candidates usually throw in the occasional "religious" monkey wrench or "open-minded" red herring and it makes them sound appealing to the layman... even though they have no idea what they're talking about. ::shrugs:: It's politics.
Yep. It's all driven by fear of alienating themselves from their base of mouth-breathing imbeciles. The liberals have theirs, too, but at least their ideals don't get in the way of social progress (merely economic progress, it could be said).
|
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
|
On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
All things being equal, this is why I am a republican. National security and economic policy trump every other issue. I consider "social policy" issues to be luxury issues. If we don't get our national security (foreign strength) and economic policy (domestic strength) right, then everything else is moot.
Democrats simply are demonstrably weaker than republicans on both issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans don't always do the right thing either (see Bush), but they are more likely to adopt the right policies on these important issues.
|
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing.
|
On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy.
On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests.
Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes.
You would be voting for Bond villains.
|
On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy.
This is just wrong. Green jobs initiatives have been colossal failures so far. The Washington Post found that the green jobs created so far has cost $5,000,000 EACH. And this is just counting government investment in green jobs and not accounting for government green-regulations that are costing the economy other jobs.
Green initiatives MAY provide good returns in the long term, but we're still many years away from that point. The US economy needs to improve NOW.
EDIT: I think the real number is $10,000,000 each. I got the $5,000,000 from the site below, but the numbers don't add up. http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2011/Post_Obama_Green_Jobs_Cost__Million_Each_.html
|
On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 23:39 radiatoren wrote:Copenhagen - The European Union official in charge of the bloc's work on climate action expressed 'shock' over views expresssed in the United States on climate change, a news report said Monday.
'I am shocked that the US has a debate that is removed so far from scientific facts,' Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner for climate action, was quoted as telling Danish daily Politiken.
Hedegaard was referring to remarks expressed by some Republican presidential candidates that 'denied climate change.'
Against that backdrop, she said it was unlikely that the upcoming climate conference in Durban, South Africa, would result in a binding agreement on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
'We can read the political situtation in the US. The fact is, the US will not move before the Durban meeting,' she said.
Instead the 27-nation EU and other countries should prepare for unilateral reductions and the Durban meeting should attempt to secure 'a plan with deadlines where we can reach a binding treaty that includes both the US and China,' Hedegaard said.
In 2009, Hedegaard - then a Danish cabinet member - chaired part of the UN climate conference in her native Denmark that also failed to achieve a binding agreement on emissions. Having a thread about the Republican candidates, is there any difference in the views on this issue from the different candidates or is there just "science-fobia" on this subject from a general republican stance as it is claimed? Of the candidates, only Huntsman is likely to implement policies to combat global warming. Both Newt and Romney have talked about global warming as a problem in the past, so I wouldn't be shocked if either of them did something as well (still not expecting it). The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
Thanks for the clear answer! At least the 3 described as more modererate candidates are not directly factually wrong.
However I agree that there are issues of far more importance than climate.
The reason for the question was just, that it seems like a long jump from ignoring and sidestepping an issue to "speaking against better knowledge" and I don't understand the reasoning behind that! Doesn't that difference in rhetoric push away educated people?
And if they are better at economy - I only know Clinton and Bush in that regard and of those Clinton seems to have been seen as the better - then it is a very important incentive for a vote.
|
On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing.
I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending.
On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains.
Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy.
|
On September 27 2011 01:18 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 26 2011 23:39 radiatoren wrote:Copenhagen - The European Union official in charge of the bloc's work on climate action expressed 'shock' over views expresssed in the United States on climate change, a news report said Monday.
'I am shocked that the US has a debate that is removed so far from scientific facts,' Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner for climate action, was quoted as telling Danish daily Politiken.
Hedegaard was referring to remarks expressed by some Republican presidential candidates that 'denied climate change.'
Against that backdrop, she said it was unlikely that the upcoming climate conference in Durban, South Africa, would result in a binding agreement on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
'We can read the political situtation in the US. The fact is, the US will not move before the Durban meeting,' she said.
Instead the 27-nation EU and other countries should prepare for unilateral reductions and the Durban meeting should attempt to secure 'a plan with deadlines where we can reach a binding treaty that includes both the US and China,' Hedegaard said.
In 2009, Hedegaard - then a Danish cabinet member - chaired part of the UN climate conference in her native Denmark that also failed to achieve a binding agreement on emissions. Having a thread about the Republican candidates, is there any difference in the views on this issue from the different candidates or is there just "science-fobia" on this subject from a general republican stance as it is claimed? Of the candidates, only Huntsman is likely to implement policies to combat global warming. Both Newt and Romney have talked about global warming as a problem in the past, so I wouldn't be shocked if either of them did something as well (still not expecting it). The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being). Thanks for the clear answer! At least the 3 described as more modererate candidates are not directly factually wrong. However I agree that there are issues of far more importance than climate. The reason for the question was just, that it seems like a long jump from ignoring and sidestepping an issue to "speaking against better knowledge" and I don't understand the reasoning behind that! Doesn't that difference in rhetoric push away educated people?And if they are better at economy - I only know Clinton and Bush in that regard and of those Clinton seems to have been seen as the better - then it is a very important incentive for a vote.
No, because there's a significant amount of disagreement among "educated" people over what should be done about climate change. Most Americans -- even most republicans -- acknowledge that the climate changes. Where the real disagreement lies is the extent to which man is contributing to global warming and, if man is contributing, what should be done about it.
|
On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy.
What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market.
|
On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market.
If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial.
|
On September 27 2011 00:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
All things being equal, this is why I am a republican. National security and economic policy trump every other issue. I consider "social policy" issues to be luxury issues. If we don't get our national security (foreign strength) and economic policy (domestic strength) right, then everything else is moot. Democrats simply are demonstrably weaker than republicans on both issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans don't always do the right thing either (see Bush), but they are more likely to adopt the right policies on these important issues.
How do Republicans have a demonstrably better record on national security? Sure they want to give the DOD and defense contractors a blank check, but their "assertive" foreign policies get American troops killed unnecessarily and foster global resentment of our country. We were far safer when entire regions of the world didn't view us as a symbol of imperialism/oppression.
Democrats are guilty of these things themselves; there seems to be more of a difference in perception/brand image than actual substance.
|
On September 27 2011 01:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. This is just wrong. Green jobs initiatives have been colossal failures so far. The Washington Post found that the green jobs created so far has cost $5,000,000 EACH. And this is just counting government investment in green jobs and not accounting for government green-regulations that are costing the economy other jobs. Green initiatives MAY provide good returns in the long term, but we're still many years away from that point. The US economy needs to improve NOW.
Look, I have no desire to argue with you, especially considering what you consider to be "peer review," because I know I may as well argue with a steel post. You will not budge. I know this.
But let's pretend that green jobs don't create wealth in the economy (they do), or that environmental regulations represent some gigantic handicap on the economy (they do not): the fallout from pollution, global warming, etc. and the lack of green initiatives to ameliorate these conditions, would lead to severe droughts that would wreck agriculture and cause widespread forest fires in the United States. The midwest-to-south experienced a troubling wheat crop, a wrecked cotton crop, and scant hay, meaning that livestock may need to be shipped out of State.
The total estimated cost to Texas alone: $5,000,000.
|
On September 27 2011 01:36 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 00:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
All things being equal, this is why I am a republican. National security and economic policy trump every other issue. I consider "social policy" issues to be luxury issues. If we don't get our national security (foreign strength) and economic policy (domestic strength) right, then everything else is moot. Democrats simply are demonstrably weaker than republicans on both issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans don't always do the right thing either (see Bush), but they are more likely to adopt the right policies on these important issues. How do Republicans have a demonstrably better record on national security? Sure they want to give the DOD and defense contractors a blank check, but their "assertive" foreign policies get American troops killed unnecessarily and foster global resentment of our country. We were far safer when entire regions of the world didn't view us as a symbol of imperialism/oppression. Democrats are guilty of these things themselves; there seems to be more of a difference in perception/brand image than actual substance.
Here are a few things that come to mind:
- Republicans generally aren't looking to gut the military (this one is obvious);
- Republicans don't piss on our allies (to be fair, this may be something unique to Obama);
- Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield).
|
The ad on the side of the page is "WE EXPOSE GEORGE SOROS."
I'm sorry, please try again.
|
On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial.
They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated?
I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so...
|
On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial.
Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job.
Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control).
In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad.
|
On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so...
Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall.
On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad.
I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda.
|
On September 27 2011 01:40 jon arbuckle wrote:The ad on the side of the page is "WE EXPOSE GEORGE SOROS." I'm sorry, please try again.
Feel free to read the Washington Post article that they link to. That's where the numbers came from.
|
On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:29 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 00:58 jmac28 wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Daunt.
It's nice to see a like-minded person after reading through the last 106 pages of republican bashing. I follow the same opinion. I in fact despite the Republicans on social issues, but at the moment I prefer their economic policies. Minus defense spending. On September 27 2011 01:01 jon arbuckle wrote:On September 26 2011 23:55 xDaunt wrote:
The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
That's the perception, but green initiatives would actually create jobs and help the economy. On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
I have a lot of sympathy for you, and I think these are real problems, but what every left-leaning poster in this thread, American or otherwise, finds flabbergasting is that you would vote Republican and therefore vote against your best interests. Nobody needed Warren Buffet to know that Republicans policies coddle the rich at the expense of everyone else, and it's horrifying to speculate that the Republicans will take the White House in 2012 because almost evil attempts at sabotage and refusal to compromise inappropriate for any sane political system have gone unpunished. Obama is blamed for the GOP House that was prepared to shut down the government to preserve the Bush tax cuts and pass Paul Ryan's draconian budget and for that same House that wanted to lead the United States to default rather than raise taxes. You would be voting for Bond villains. Green jobs don't help the economy. I hate that argument. Why would it help the economy? By no means do I think having "green" jobs is a bad thing, but I'm not buying the argument it helps the economy. What? There's a market for green products, just like there's a market for everything else. People don't buy a Prius because it's the most powerful, flashy automobile on the market. If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial. Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda.
Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit.
Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
