Will We See More of This?

[Westside Steve]

Wow. That was pathetic on all three counts. Even for you this is a particularly pathetic effort. Clearly you are completely out of facts and ideas and are left with arguing points that aren't the least bit germane. Except that you seem intensely proud of their worth, which makes this all the more pathetic.

 

Do you honestly mean to tell me that after spending years (quite literally) trying to tell me that there's nothing we can do about reducing emissions because of population growth, and because of India and China - I mean, these are arguments you've made in the last 72 hours, in this very thread - now you're going to try to tell me that the market will take care of it? And your example backing this up is ...because we went from albums to CDs? Because we went from horses to cars?

 

Ecactly true. So what? Don't just bark about it, prove something. At least be honest enough to admit your mixing subjects to make a false point. You can do that no?

 

Shouldn't you just give up at this point? You're literally making the point that technology advances over time and then taking a victory lap. This should be embarrassing for you.

 

Then after saying these three things:

 

"last night Obama said the CBO is full of shit in considering his health care plan. Agree or disagree?"

 

"Obama says the CBO is way off on the projections for his health care plan."

 

"So who's wrong about the healthcare mistake? Obama or the CBO?

Pick one if you're so grown up"

 

I asked you to find a quote so we can have a discussion about what he actually said, not you mischaracterizing what he said. I even tried to supply you with part of the quote. Your response: to admit that you can't find it, and to suggest that I make things up.

 

Really, I think we're done here.

 

We are indeed.

You've posted logical questions and refused to answer them.

As usual.

Why's that my fault?

 

But one last thing. I want to know if you know just how ridiculous you sound. Here are all the mentions of you suggesting that I worship Obama ...in a discussion about the definition of a recession and Waxman-Markey/cap and trade. And these are just from this thread. Here we go:

 

"We have all the Obamapologists we need."

 

"I'll assume your reasons are to help take heat off the failed economic policies and misjudgements of the current president."

 

"Surely you have other Obama failures to defend."

 

"For the entire campaign you and Obama repeated the mantra that it was caused by the failed economic policies of George Bush."

 

" I don't know why you're so angry.

Obama has the situation in hand and happy days are just around the corner."

 

"I mean I know Obama is a deity but how can both boasts be true?"

 

"That's hot news to you and your dim apostles.

But hey when Obama's zombies spread bullshit...whew!"

 

"Obama says the CBO is way off on the projections for his health care plan.

OK.

So they are infallible or he is. You pick."

 

"I doubt you'd be wearing the rose garden colored glasses if it was, ahhh you know."

 

"You, sir, while certainly not a moron, regularly take any idea contrary to Obama's and hyperbolize it to the extreme in what I see as an over zealous and constaant vigil to protect the guy."

 

"There is no quote saying you want to suck Obama off or anything.

It's the fact that (like here) you fight tooth and nail against even mild statements that suggest he isn't a god."

 

 

All correct. And each and every one awaiting an answer other than the fact you don't like the statements.

 

I'll just leave you with this:

 

Description of Ad Hominem

 

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

 

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

 

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

 

 

And I'll leave you with this.

That doesnt' even describe what's going on here and you know it.

 

No matter how often you cut and paste your precious high school debate notes or propaganda elemnts.

Even if there was a basis I'm A and you're B FWIW (which is almost nil)

 

Me: I think this program is gonna end up costing more than it's worth.

You: You're an idiot who sings in saloons.

 

So also remember that if you insist on using the CBO as the final word for your argument it's fair to point out that your boy takes issue with them at other times.

 

What's unfair about that?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, if you think those points you made about albums and horses are valid to this discussion then you're really not up to having this discussion.

 

We can stop now. It's okay.

 

[Westside Steve]

Steve, if you think those points you made about albums and horses are valid to this discussion then you're really not up to having this discussion.

 

We can stop now. It's okay.

 

Yes heck they are.

You're needlessly bickering if you deny them.

I understand that's your calling.

The aim of technology is mostly to make and sell a better and more useful product often results in a benefits.

I'm sure we can list hundreds of products that were developed because they're better than their predecessors. They often have side benefits BUT they were NOT developed for that specific purpose.

I'm sure you can grasp that. really, can't you? It's not that tough.

I'm also sure you'll refuse to and offer up a non response.

 

So answer me.

When the CD was developed was the aim to save vinyl?

Yes or no.

Did it also reducce vinyl?

 

yes or no.

 

And now the non response.....

 

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I just burst out laughing.

 

What do you think this proves about global warming? I don't get it.

 

Please, can we stop this? You think I worship Obama and that technology changes and improves over time. Got it. Other than that, I have no idea what points you're making about the discussion we're having.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

I just burst out laughing.

 

What do you think this proves about global warming? I don't get it.

I have no idea what points you're making about the discussion we're having.

 

Tell ya what Heck.

Even more grating and disingenuous is that line.

 

Every time you get your ass slapped you pretend you are oblivious.

 

That an a loud "Harrumph."

 

But (and sadly you'll pretend to misunderstand) the free market will continue to make products that are better and mor desirable.

Many will also be more energy efficient.

All without your little tax.

 

Don't worry, there will still be a human race in five years.

Have some pie.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve! I'm laughing at you because you think stating the entirely uncontroversial fact that technology improves over time is relevant to what we're talking about and an ass-whooping that I can deny, but I can't run from. Yes, you actually think you've made a huge point here and I can't accept it's brilliance, and how it destroys my arguments. Are you really that daft? Am I being punked here?

 

I mean, listen to what you're saying:

 

But (and sadly you'll pretend to misunderstand) the free market will continue to make products that are better and mor desirable.

Many will also be more energy efficient.

All without your little tax.

 

How can I misunderstand this? My son understands this, and he's only an infant. Gee, the free market will make new products that improve on the older products? Some of them will be more energy efficient?

 

Well, holy shit, my friend. Go buy yourself a beer. This is a landmark discovery. Then maybe you can come back and ass whoop me some more by insisting that the moon affects the tides - you can't deny it Heck!!

 

people lose bone mass as they age - or maybe your too in love with Obama to notice!

 

I've given you far too much credit, it seems.

[Mr. T]

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

****************************

Let it be known, that Heck has accurately described the libs

 

on this board, when anyone posts any opinion that ticks them off.

 

What really pisses him off is when you talk about free enterprise without any government controls, that dont enable, lets say company A because its not fair to company X. Everything has to be relevant to libs.

 

 

I would like to see one just one example of how any business has made it to the top while being ran by government officials, and dont name banks who received Billions of taxpayers dollars to show a profit either.

 

Any takers?

 

Without competition between businesses, you wont get superior products and services. Just mediocrity.

 

This same principal should be a reminder to all of what is coming in the way of obama's/hillary's health care.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

But (and sadly you'll pretend to misunderstand) the free market will continue to make products that are better and mor desirable.

Many will also be more energy efficient.

All without your little tax.

 

How can I misunderstand this?

 

I don't know Heck.

Why bicker endlessly about it?

 

Read the last line of the quote.

 

"all without your little tax"

 

So since I believe your looming catastrophe is exaggerated at best I say (and you've bitched about it steering the bickerfest in this direction) that the free market's normal practices will make some products more energy efficient.

 

And that I do NOT think an energy tax is warranted.

 

Now you're free to take this perfectly rational statement and throw a hissy fit.

 

Or post another raft of meaningless drivel.

 

(I get the beer on the house........)

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Maybe that explains it. I hope so.

[calfoxwc]

I'm still waiting, T and Steve, to hear how any lib can diss the problems with any VA hospitals, then turn around

 

and want the gov to control our health care, then DEFEND THAT !

 

It's corrupt thinking.

 

The gov has mishandled Social Security, the budget, medicare, etc.

 

But they "seriously" want us to all be manipulated into a government health program?

 

Brits and Canadians have desperately come here to get the help they need from OUR SYSTEM>

 

they suffer from rationalization, wait times that can mean death, and withheld care due to cost,

 

or bureaucratic decisions as to the bureaucracy's idea of what is cost-effective, or AGE-effective.

 

But it's all a hidden pipe dream of liberals/marxists - they want the power to control,

 

and don't think that they aren't so arrogant and indoctrinated with self-righteousness,

 

that they won't manipulate a way to keep that power.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Huh? Liberals sing the praises of the VA health system. It's not perfect, but that's the model for much of what they're talking about.

[calfoxwc]

Huh? Liberals sing the praises of the VA health system. It's not perfect, but that's the model for much of what they're talking about.

Heck

******************************

Our current health system isn't perfect. But it's one of the finest health care systems in the world, except

 

for those who don't have insurance...

 

Remember these threads?

The Army denies that combat stress causes homicide. mz the pussy

 

Ongoing Care For Returning Soldiers Dan

 

You know, bureaucratic negligence? What you want for ALL OF US ? A mega-bureaucratic mess that will end up

 

forcing even private medical insurures to either go out of business, or comply with the gov's regulations?

 

When you get the nads to be honest, Heck - just agree with the rest of us, who say we do NOT need a whole new

 

system from the gov, with problems.

 

We just want the problems with our terrific CURRENT SYSTEM FIXED.

 

Well, unless you just want more Americans to be totally dependent on the Obama admin for their medical

 

insurance survival so they will HAVE to vote for Democrats forever.

 

Just take your pick. But t-r-y to be honest about it. There's a lot at stake.

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't know why I bothered.

 

The VA outperforms private health insurance on a number of measures. Taken in full, it's probably the best health insurance program out there. It's also government-run.

 

Simply stating that because the government runs a health care plan that means it's going to be a disaster does not square with reality. It squares with ideology.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sorry to hear about your uncle's experience. That doesn't change the fact that the VA health system outperforms private health insurance on a whole host of measures.

[Westside Steve]

Huh? Liberals sing the praises of the VA health system. It's not perfect, but that's the model for much of what they're talking about.

 

I don't have any experience with the VA but some the people I know in medecine say they're not very high on their desired places to work.

FWIW.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Maybe that explains it. I hope so.

 

Seriously little buddy you just spent hours arguing bickering changing the subject bellyaching just to come to the conclusion that there isn't anything wrong with what I said??

That borders on obsession.

 

While you bitch about your wasted time just ask yourself how tough would it be to say.

 

"Yes that's true but I really do think the situation is just that critical and I hope that if done correctly the C & T bill is the first and very important step in the eventual solution.

To me it's worth the short term pain."

 

But for the love of Pete you wrote an epic attack to rival King Lear.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, lord.

 

Try it this way: why on earth would we have a debate about whether technology improves over time? What would be the point of that? It's akin to debating whether humans age.

 

You'd think we could stipulate that from the get-go. But apparently this is all you have to contribute.

 

And then you're left wondering why I would rather talk about, you know, the actual issues relating to the debate. Change the subject? You mean trying to change it to the actual subject? Yes, guilty as charged.

 

The point, little buddy, isn't whether or not what you said is right. It's that what you said is simple and irrelevant. And the idea that we went around and around on this for months and that's all you've got left to hang your hat on - that technology will improve even without a carbon pricing - is absolutely embarrassing.

 

I just can't tell if it's more embarrassing for you, or for me.

 

Enjoy that free beer.

[Westside Steve]

Oh, lord.

 

Try it this way: why on earth would we have a debate about whether technology improves over time? What would be the point of that? It's akin to debating whether humans age.

 

 

I just can't tell if it's more embarrassing for you, or for me.

 

One would hope it's you .

I mean I assume you can read and understand that it was you who wanted to know what that had to do with global warming [and the tax], and assumedly why I don't think your tax is necessary.

If you can't grasp that I can't help you.

 

You should be embarrassed to ask me to repeat the same thing over and over if you have nothing to add but beer jokes or my job.

 

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

It has yet to be addressed how the C&T would influence (read: put the screws on) the producers of carbon, while only yielding the average household an average increase of $170.

 

If producers are just increasing their prices, yet consumers are shielded from this increase by rebates, what incentive is there for the producers to change to more efficient methods?

The possibility of selling carbon credits in the future? Ok, maybe. But should part of the plan have a diminishing value of these credits over time - I mean, if they are really to address the problem of Carbon in the 1st place?

 

 

What will the government be doing with the $170/household? At the top of my list of answers would be:

1. Nothing innovative

2. Nothing helpful (for the problem, and for the people)

(feel free to add you own)

[Mr. T]

What will the government be doing with the $170/household? At the top of my list of answers would be:

1. Nothing innovative

2. Nothing helpful (for the problem, and for the people)

(feel free to add you own)

 

3. Give it to the UN Green weenies (this is a UN Tax).

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Leg, consumers are going to react to the increased prices the way they do with any other good, so long as someone provides a viable, cheaper alternative. Think of how people started changing their behavior when gas prices were so high last year - they started abandoning SUVs and buying more fuel efficient cars; real estate with shorter commutes or access to public transportation started moving faster than real estate further away from cities; green technologies that were priced out of the market were starting to become economically viable; venture capital for green technologies went through the roof. These are millions upon millions of consumer and business decisions being affected by the price of energy.

 

If you pass a law that says it's going to start costing more to emit carbon, and then even more as time progresses, both consumers and businesses will adjust. And if you combine that with regulations, or with renewable energy goals, they adjust even further. Does this have costs? Sure it does. It also has benefits.

 

As for the second part of the question, yes, the price of emitting carbon rises over time. The $175 estimate from the CBO goes until 2019. To get the bill through the House the targets for emissions reductions in the first ten years were both lowered and delayed. (This is why anyone who talks about what a bad idea it is to raises taxes on energy in a recession is full of shit - because none of it is going to happen in this current recession.) This is why many people think it doesn't do enough, though most of those people are also happy with what the bill does after that. The out years are more effective.

 

As for what the government is going to do with the revenue, that's the least of my worries seeing as how we don't have nearly enough revenue to pay for our current spending. It will shrink the deficit. We need more revenue. You could cut every program in the budget (which we won't) and we'd still need more revenue. It's something the American people don't want to face, but that's not reality's fault.

 

But I am glad that they're rebating some of it to consumers, especially at the low end of the income spectrum. In fact, in my conversations with Tupa about this, we both talked about how we'd like to see it be revenue-neutral, or close to it. Not only would that have made it more politically feasible (in a world where most Republicans are interested in solving problems like global warming, which isn't the world we live in) but it could have made the tax code more efficient and sensible - i.e. substituting a tax on pollution for, say, a tax on work or investment or business.

 

It's tough to do a one-to-one trade on something like that, but you get the idea.

 

Sorry, that was more than you wanted to read.

[Mr. T]

This is an good article on cap & Trade and what the Green Weenies want for all of us.

 

 

'$20 Per Gallon' < -- article

 

As you read through the article you will see where our economy is going all in the name of some cowardly environmentalist.

 

Just maybe they will get a visit from captain Planet and get a free badge. Idiots!

[Legacy Fan]

Leg, consumers are going to react to the increased prices the way they do with any other good, so long as someone provides a viable, cheaper alternative. Think of how people started changing their behavior when gas prices were so high last year - they started abandoning SUVs and buying more fuel efficient cars; real estate with shorter commutes or access to public transportation started moving faster than real estate further away from cities; green technologies that were priced out of the market were starting to become economically viable; venture capital for green technologies went through the roof. These are millions upon millions of consumer and business decisions being affected by the price of energy.

I understand this behavior, but that was more in the neighborhood of $170/per month, not year- more for most. What I'm saying is that the incentive isn't really there if GE or Exxon or whomever is going to get hit with such a marginal tax, they wont be reinventing the wheel anytime soon (marginal because they'll just bump the pricing for stuff). Sooner needs to be here now, imo. We're currently looking in the wrong direction for automobiles & transportation, imo. In case you've forgotten, I'm a bio-diesel/bio-fuel guy. Negates so many potential problems (re-thinking distrobution, infrastructure, transport, the automobile itself).

 

If you pass a law that says it's going to start costing more to emit carbon, and then even more as time progresses, both consumers and businesses will adjust. And if you combine that with regulations, or with renewable energy goals, they adjust even further. Does this have costs? Sure it does. It also has benefits.

I agree about the cost/benny presence, I just worry about the mismanagement of the cost to us. And also, "renewable energy goals & regulations" translate to costs. Lets hope that's part of the $170 figure, I'm guessing it's not.

 

As for the second part of the question, yes, the price of emitting carbon rises over time. The $175 estimate from the CBO goes until 2019. To get the bill through the House the targets for emissions reductions in the first ten years were both lowered and delayed. (This is why anyone who talks about what a bad idea it is to raises taxes on energy in a recession is full of shit - because none of it is going to happen in this current recession.) This is why many people think it doesn't do enough, though most of those people are also happy with what the bill does after that. The out years are more effective.

I brought this up because I am unfamiliar with the incentive shift that will need to take place in order for this to be a success. Is it a wait and see thing? As in, waiting to see what technology/changes emerge? Are you familiar with it? Because so far, this admin's MO has been to heave money at a problem, & iron out the details later. That bothers me.

 

As for what the government is going to do with the revenue, that's the least of my worries seeing as how we don't have nearly enough revenue to pay for our current spending. It will shrink the deficit. We need more revenue. You could cut every program in the budget (which we won't) and we'd still need more revenue. It's something the American people don't want to face, but that's not reality's fault.

I brought this up half jokingly, but it's just too easy and too frustrating for me to see incompetence on so many levels. It just really bothers me that they will more than likely be pissing away another revenue stream that could have been used for good.

 

But I am glad that they're rebating some of it to consumers, especially at the low end of the income spectrum. In fact, in my conversations with Tupa about this, we both talked about how we'd like to see it be revenue-neutral, or close to it. Not only would that have made it more politically feasible (in a world where most Republicans are interested in solving problems like global warming, which isn't the world we live in) but it could have made the tax code more efficient and sensible - i.e. substituting a tax on pollution for, say, a tax on work or investment or business.

 

It's tough to do a one-to-one trade on something like that, but you get the idea.

 

Sorry, that was more than you wanted to read.

I'm also glad there is a rebate program to get this thing off the ground. And I agree with your and Toop's position re: neutral revenue. I'm no longer registered but probably side with the R-team more than the D-team, but I think the potential for innovation and prosperity in combating global warming/climate change is very real, and I wish more were serious about it. I'd prefer Congress/Algores/etc.. adjust their means & motives a bit, but se la vie.

 

And I appreciate the response - good read.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Oh dear...

[calfoxwc]

My concern, is the cumulative affect of all these changes and beaurocrtic interferences and requirements.

 

You take the health care bill, Cap n Trade/Tax, income tax rates shifting dramatically toward the top

 

of the salary scales in Corp America, etc etc etc...

 

Consider the above cumulative affects on one industry, like the trucking industry. Then consider the

 

above cumulative affects on all industries, some which rely on each other. Then consider the above

 

cumulative affects on all industries and consumers - my concern is hyper-inflation and high double digit

 

interest rates surpassing those of the Carter admin days -

 

Companies can not afford to borrow money for R&D, repairs, replacement of fleets, or machinery,

 

or expansion, or building additions, lost contracts, consumer outrage...

 

I just see a traumatic result to our economy due to partisan one-up-manship and "best of intentions"...

 

along with greed and flagrant self-interest.

 

We, as American people, won't be appreciating the possibly devasting results.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Another estimate, this one from the EIA:

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Climate change legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the energy costs of the average family by $142 a year in 2020 and by $583 in 2030, according to the government's top energy forecasting agency.

 

The estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is in line with cost impact projections made by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, and contradict claims by energy and business trade groups that consumers would pay thousands of dollars more a year under a government plan to fight global warming.

 

The EIA's estimate says gasoline prices would be 23 cents a gallon higher in 2020 and 36 cents more in 2030, according to a copy of the agency's analysis that was sent to U.S. lawmakers and obtained by Reuters.

 

[Mr. T]

Okay you can pay my increases on my energy bills and I will go along with it.

 

 

 

 

Otherwise Hell NO!

[Westside Steve]

 

 

 

The EIA's estimate says gasoline prices would be 23 cents a gallon higher in 2020 and 36 cents more in 2030, according to a copy of the agency's analysis that was sent to U.S. lawmakers and obtained by Reuters.

 

Inflation adjusted dollars?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

You don't adjust for inflation forward. You can only adjust backward.

 

The numbers are supposed to give you an idea of the size of the increase relative to prices today. I can't imagine that they've got inflation estimates in there.

[Westside Steve]

I can't imagine that they've got inflation estimates in there.

 

Nope.

That'd mean admitting it's a projected problem I suppose.

WSS