Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[w1s2x3]

The war on poverty has only been successful in creating more poverty. 10 Trillion dollars has been spent since the Johnson Administration and the Great Society on "helping the poor." No where has anyone defined "the poor." The measure continues to be relative to those who are successful instead of an absolute "enough." The war on poverty has truly been a war on the "rich." and a desperate attempt to bring everyone to some unobtainable "equal" - which will most likely resemble "1984." Global climate change and other boogieman are being used to help achieve this goal. The math disproves global climate change (not to mention the emails of collusion reported) and the solvency of entitlements as currently structured. By allowing freeloaders to pose as "the poor" these programs become unworkable. People of sound mind and body should be working not participating in leftist plantations of beholden voters for more political insanity.

[trish]

The measure continues to be relative to those who are successful instead of an absolute "enough." The war on poverty has truly been a war on the "rich."

In the wonderful world of capitalism the worth of any good is determined by market forces alone; to a capitalist there is no such thing as the intrinsic worth of a resource, a good or a human being for that matter...all is determined by the market. Consequently, in any capitalist system there can be no definition of "poor" that is independent of the relative wealth of everyone else. So duh, of course measures of poverty in a capitalist state are going to depend on the buying power of the income of those making the least amount of money, which in turn depends on how much people who are more successful are willing to pay for goods and services.

We don't need everyone to have everyone to be the economic equal of everyone else, but money is power. When 35-40% of the wealth of a nation belongs to 1% of the people, then roughly 35%-40% of the political power also lies the hands of 1% of the people. The war on poverty is a war for political equality and equal representation in government.

Global climate change and other boogieman are being used to help achieve this goal.

Once again, look at the science. Political argument cannot determine the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter; political argument cannot determine the age of the Earth, nor can it prove global climate change doesn't exist. Indeed and unfortunately, the mathematical models assure us that the global climate has been shifting since the beginning of the industrial age and continues to the present.

[Faldur]

Happy Sunday everybody.. enjoy your worship of choice!

[trish]

Happy Sunday everybody.. enjoy your worship of choice!

Happy trolling anti-science buffoon.

[Faldur]

Happy trolling anti-science buffoon.

Not quite at the buffoon level, but thanks Trish..

[Stavros]

As Keynes said 'In the long run, we're all dead'...isn't planet Earth scheduled to go crispy in a couple of billion years anyway?

[w1s2x3]

In the wonderful world of capitalism the worth of any good is determined by market forces alone; to a capitalist there is no such thing as the intrinsic worth of a resource, a good or a human being for that matter...all is determined by the market. Consequently, in any capitalist system there can be no definition of "poor" that is independent of the relative wealth of everyone else. So duh, of course measures of poverty in a capitalist state are going to depend on the buying power of the income of those making the least amount of money, which in turn depends on how much people who are more successful are willing to pay for goods and services.

We don't need everyone to have everyone to be the economic equal of everyone else, but money is power. When 35-40% of the wealth of a nation belongs to 1% of the people, then roughly 35%-40% of the political power also lies the hands of 1% of the people. The war on poverty is a war for political equality and equal representation in government.
Once again, look at the science. Political argument cannot determine the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter; political argument cannot determine the age of the Earth, nor can it prove global climate change doesn't exist. Indeed and unfortunately, the mathematical models assure us that the global climate has been shifting since the beginning of the industrial age and continues to the present.

In a capitalist system people would be free to contribute to the others without a tyrannical government stealing from people. The current socialist system rewards failure and thereby creates more failure - more people leaching off the government. Your "duh" supports the very definition of the attack on the rich. In any rational program there must be an exit criteria. The "war on poverty" has none - except for the left's need to destroy the rich. It would be so much better for millions of individuals to have a job and to provide for themselves. The war on the rich is a result of the left's vanity for their own intellect. This same intellect that won't admit their mistaken notion on climate change as well.

You write of the 40% of the wealth in the hands of the 1% as it is a bad thing? Did they steal it? What about the NOWS, AARPS, ACORNS and the labor unions don't they count in the war for power? It's not one sided.

People are emotional creatures and scaring them into adding to their tax burden only benefits another group of slave masters. My argument against the hoax of global climate change is the need for people to prioritize the problems facing us. A bankrupt country will occur sooner than climate change - if ever. I hear the President has FEMA working at a fevered pitch to process the 50 million environmental refugees as a result of global climate change. The UN announced in 2005 that by 2010 these 50 million people would need a new place to live.

The computer models of global climate change are still based on Lorentz's original work, which unfortunately is a system of chaotic differential equations. The models continue to create incorrect data about the future and still do not predict the past weather even though some data from the past is available. This leads many to be wary of the purposes behind the need for radical changes in our economies for incorrect computer models.

Individual freedom, individual responsibility, individual choice, limited government, diversity of ideas and freedom of speech without fear of reprisal are the tools of a sustainable society.

[Ben]

In a capitalist system people would be free to contribute to the others without a tyrannical government stealing from people. The current socialist system rewards failure and thereby creates more failure - more people leaching off the government. Your "duh" supports the very definition of the attack on the rich. In any rational program there must be an exit criteria. The "war on poverty" has none - except for the left's need to destroy the rich. It would be so much better for millions of individuals to have a job and to provide for themselves. The war on the rich is a result of the left's vanity for their own intellect. This same intellect that won't admit their mistaken notion on climate change as well.

You write of the 40% of the wealth in the hands of the 1% as it is a bad thing? Did they steal it? What about the NOWS, AARPS, ACORNS and the labor unions don't they count in the war for power? It's not one sided.

People are emotional creatures and scaring them into adding to their tax burden only benefits another group of slave masters. My argument against the hoax of global climate change is the need for people to prioritize the problems facing us. A bankrupt country will occur sooner than climate change - if ever. I hear the President has FEMA working at a fevered pitch to process the 50 million environmental refugees as a result of global climate change. The UN announced in 2005 that by 2010 these 50 million people would need a new place to live.

The computer models of global climate change are still based on Lorentz's original work, which unfortunately is a system of chaotic differential equations. The models continue to create incorrect data about the future and still do not predict the past weather even though some data from the past is available. This leads many to be wary of the purposes behind the need for radical changes in our economies for incorrect computer models.

Individual freedom, individual responsibility, individual choice, limited government, diversity of ideas and freedom of speech without fear of reprisal are the tools of a sustainable society.

As you write: "The current socialist system rewards failure and thereby creates more failure...." Exactly. So why did we give the banks trillions and trillions of taxpayer money? I mean, Ron Paul said don't bail them out. Don't reward failure.
Do people realize that the Internet came from the public sector? Places like M.I.T. and the University of Chicago.
It started in the mid 60s. So the cost and risk and ideas were publicly funded. Then circa '95 it was handed over to the private sector.
So, the costs are socialized. And the profits and management are privatized.
Same thing with TV, radio etc. etc. The cost and risk is born/carried by the public and then handed over to the private sector. (I mean, the government does interfere in the economy -- all the time. Think patents. Government intervention. Think the illegality of hard drugs: government intervention. I mean, we have selective free markets.
Think: controlling immigration. Think: Stop signs. Think: taxes.
Okay, we should leave this ALL to the private sector. I mean, who will build the roads, the bridges, schools etc. etc.)
This utopian vision of a no government society strikes me as very frightening. Essentially we'd all be at the mercy of unaccountable corporate entities. I mean, no democracy whatsoever. No unions.
At times this debate seems idiotic. I mean, who controls the government? Big and powerful corporations. Who does the government serve? Well, big and powerful corporations. Governments serve power. And the most powerful institutions in our society are corporations. The fact is big business want big government. For themselves, to serve their interests. And not the interest of the old widow down the street.
And now to quote Noam Chomsky at some length: 'Returning to the charges against "greedy bankers," in fairness, we should concede that they have a valid defense. Their task is to maximize profit and market share, in fact that's their legal obligation. If they don't do it, they'll be replaced by someone who will. These are institutional facts, as are the inherent market inefficiencies that require them to ignore systemic risk: the likelihood that transactions they enter into will harm the economy generally. They know full well that these policies are likely to tank the economy, but these externalities, as they are called, are not their business; and cannot be, not because they are bad people, but for institutional reasons. It is also unfair to accuse them of "irrational exuberance," to borrow Alan Greenspan's brief recognition of reality during the artificial tech boom of the late '90s. Their exuberance and risk-taking was quite rational, in the knowledge that when it all collapses, they can flee to the shelter of the nanny state, clutching their copies of Hayek, Friedman, and Rand. The government insurance policy is one of many perverse incentives that magnify the inherent market inefficiencies.'

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky sums it up nicely:

[w1s2x3]

As you write: "The current socialist system rewards failure and thereby creates more failure...." Exactly. So why did we give the banks trillions and trillions of taxpayer money? I mean, Ron Paul said don't bail them out. Don't reward failure.
Do people realize that the Internet came from the public sector? Places like M.I.T. and the University of Chicago.
It started in the mid 60s. So the cost and risk and ideas were publicly funded. Then circa '95 it was handed over to the private sector.
So, the costs are socialized. And the profits and management are privatized.
Same thing with TV, radio etc. etc. The cost and risk is born/carried by the public and then handed over to the private sector. (I mean, the government does interfere in the economy -- all the time. Think patents. Government intervention. Think the illegality of hard drugs: government intervention. I mean, we have selective free markets.
Think: controlling immigration. Think: Stop signs. Think: taxes.
Okay, we should leave this ALL to the private sector. I mean, who will build the roads, the bridges, schools etc. etc.)
This utopian vision of a no government society strikes me as very frightening. Essentially we'd all be at the mercy of unaccountable corporate entities. I mean, no democracy whatsoever. No unions.
At times this debate seems idiotic. I mean, who controls the government? Big and powerful corporations. Who does the government serve? Well, big and powerful corporations. Governments serve power. And the most powerful institutions in our society are corporations. The fact is big business want big government. For themselves, to serve their interests. And not the interest of the old widow down the street.
And now to quote Noam Chomsky at some length: 'Returning to the charges against "greedy bankers," in fairness, we should concede that they have a valid defense. Their task is to maximize profit and market share, in fact that's their legal obligation. If they don't do it, they'll be replaced by someone who will. These are institutional facts, as are the inherent market inefficiencies that require them to ignore systemic risk: the likelihood that transactions they enter into will harm the economy generally. They know full well that these policies are likely to tank the economy, but these externalities, as they are called, are not their business; and cannot be, not because they are bad people, but for institutional reasons. It is also unfair to accuse them of "irrational exuberance," to borrow Alan Greenspan's brief recognition of reality during the artificial tech boom of the late '90s. Their exuberance and risk-taking was quite rational, in the knowledge that when it all collapses, they can flee to the shelter of the nanny state, clutching their copies of Hayek, Friedman, and Rand. The government insurance policy is one of many perverse incentives that magnify the inherent market inefficiencies.'

I mention limited government in my comments. The bailouts should never have happened.

The ruling class as represented by George, Bill, George and Barry have bailed out their buddies - businesses. Why does one company get bailed out over another? This flies in the face of the 14th Amendment where legal entities are to be treated equally under the law. If Wall Street and Detroit went out of business someone would have bought them. Free trade has handed us many people who no longer have jobs or low paying jobs.