[Helmling]

I was thinking about Kerrigan's question about the economy in one of the threads below and then also thinking about some of the things ebuddy was pointing out in a discussion we were having--maybe the same thread?

Here's what I'm seeing:

First off, it's very obvious to me that corporations and big money are pretty much writing their ticket and that this has been going on since Reagan's Voodoo Economics. They get tailored tax write offs, privatization of everything under the sun, and generally anything they think will drive their profits higher gets pushed through the government in the name of growth and jobs--even though we all know most of those jobs are created for low wages halfway across the world.

BUT, it also has to be evident to even the most die-hard supporter of programs like Social Security and Medicare that the costs of those programs are rising and will rise astronomically when the demographics in this country shift as we have more retirees than workers. There's quite compelling evidence that the system as currently organized is unsustainable.

We've all heard the quote (of disputed origin) that democracies always fail when people discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public coffers...so what if we're both wrong because both sides are doing this? What if, even worse, the two trends are really somehow connected--that one is feeding off the other?

What if, basically, our trajectory as a civilization is fundamentally flawed?

The left says that we need to tax the top bracket (I've been arguing this vociferously lately) in order to restore balance and equity, but the right says that that kind of taxation would slow growth--and our whole economic system is now addicted to growth.

The right says that we need to cut deficits by slashing services, but the left counters that this would leave working class people adrift in human misery and undercut the foundation of the economy by further subtracting from demand.

Scylla and Charybdis.

Can a balance really be struck or does this tension implicit in modern global capitalism inevitably lead to collapse?

[Athens]

Watch zeitgeist moving forward, which goes into our economic system. Its easier to watch then for me to try and explain the very complex stuff they go through in it.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

it's very obvious to me that corporations and big money are pretty much writing their ticket and that this has been going on since Reagan's Voodoo Economics. They get tailored tax write offs, privatization of everything under the sun, and generally anything they think will drive their profits higher gets pushed through the government in the name of growth and jobs--even though we all know most of those jobs are created for low wages halfway across the world.

Like how the current administration has treated the Auto industry, The Oil industry, the Coal industry, the small business owners, etc, etc, etc. Now he's propping up the Union thugs, and community activists and all those who helped him get into office. Seem pro business to you?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Like how the current administration has treated the Auto industry, The Oil industry, the Coal industry, the small business owners, etc, etc, etc. Now he's propping up the Union thugs, and community activists and all those who helped him get into office. Seem pro business to you?

No, seems like he's looking for that balance. You forget this administration also gave corporate America a whole lot of cash, among a bevy of other measures which got progressive voters' panties in a bunch. Any honest appraisal of Obama must conclude that he's deeply committed to compromise. My question, to which you responded with the usual biased, one-sided rhetoric, is, "is compromise futile?" because capitalism and government are actually locked in a mutualistic death dance.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

No, seems like he's looking for that balance.

Balance? LMAO.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Watch zeitgeist moving forward, which goes into our economic system. Its easier to watch then for me to try and explain the very complex stuff they go through in it.

Sounds like Star Trek...great Utopia, but how do we get there from here? So many people are acclimated to the psychology of markets that they can't imagine another way to organize the material concerns in our lives (I have trouble gettinng my brain around it, too) and they regard any proposing alternatives as naive.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Balance? LMAO.

You should really open your mind a little bit.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

No, seems like he's looking for that balance. You forget this administration also gave corporate America a whole lot of cash, among a bevy of other measures which got progressive voters' panties in a bunch. Any honest appraisal of Obama must conclude that he's deeply committed to compromise. My question, to which you responded with the usual biased, one-sided rhetoric, is, "is compromise futile?" because capitalism and government are actually locked in a mutualistic death dance.

Where would this "Compromise" be? I guess you want to parse his words to see if any group of words mean shit w/in 24 hours after he's said them? He is rooted in radical leftist agendas and ideas. He will just continue to be the slimy snake he was since he was campaigning.

[BadKosh]

And you are unbiased with junk like THIS:

"Any honest appraisal of Obama must conclude that he's deeply committed to compromise."


MUST???? Bwa-ha-ha-ha.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Sounds like Star Trek...great Utopia, but how do we get there from here? So many people are acclimated to the psychology of markets that they can't imagine another way to organize the material concerns in our lives (I have trouble gettinng my brain around it, too) and they regard any proposing alternatives as naive.

We don't. And the idolistc world they believe in will never happen. They do a great job showing us what is wrong but the solutions they offer are not realistic either. I like point out the series for understanding the problems because they do a good job anaylising it. But they also have a lot of propaganda and

[Big Mac]

Helmling, I'm glad to see that you're beginning to consider that you may not have all the answers.

For me, there's no argument you can make in favor of Entitlements that can convince me they're positive, especially not the general entitlements people have come to expect/demand (Social Security and Medicare). (Limited, needs based entitlements make some sense in a prosperous country as long as they don't run out of control cost wise and abuse is carefully restrained.) People should not come to expect/demand the government to give them money for doing nothing or to give them heavily subsidized (and price distorting) health care for doing nothing. It's unhealthy to create that kind of dependence, and it's unjust to rob from the productive portion of the population to fund those programs. Government creates more misery than happiness by making welfare addicts out of its citizenry than by the alternative - giving them freedom to provide for themselves - especially since entitlements for all is an unsustainable pyramid scheme that has to invariably topple.

In the 18th, 19th and up to the early 20th Century, Americans didn't believe in taking handouts from government. The popular culture found it shameful to be on the government dole. But then we had a radical change with the Great Depression and the New Deal, after which an entitlement mindset began to take hold among many Americans. I think you can agree that the things that made America great were our Constitutionally protected liberty and individual rights, not high taxation, entitlement programs and enormous government. Of course, as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's not just the public entitlements that are killing us. It's also the enormous government payrolls, what I call government employee entitlements, that combined with the general public entitlements consume the vast majority of government expenditures and are rapidly bankrupting US.

The day of reckoning for many decades of Progressivism and Statism is very near. We'll find out if today's Americans are prepared to return to self-reliance and liberty or if they're going to allow the American experiment to die because of decades of Progressive/Statist/Socialist brainwashing and addiction to government benefits. The fights between state governments and the corrupt unions that we see today are the preliminary battles in this war for the heart of the country. We haven't even seen the fight warm up on the federal level yet.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Where would this "Compromise" be? I guess you want to parse his words to see if any group of words mean shit w/in 24 hours after he's said them? He is rooted in radical leftist agendas and ideas. He will just continue to be the slimy snake he was since he was campaigning.

I first became aware of Barrack Obama when an excerpt of his Audacity of Hope was published in Time. In it, he wrote eloquently about the centrality of compromise in democracy, while having to make allowances for the fact that sometimes it is the uncompromising who create progress (as in ending slavery). That is very much the Barrack Obama I heard in the State of the Union. He called for a lot of compromise in that address. Did you not see it or read it?

The things you're saying about Obama just don't seem grounded in reality. A radical leftist would've rather seen all the bail out money go into relief efforts for people affected by the economic crash, not to the too-big-to-fail banks and corporations. A radical leftist would not pledge to try to make sure that unneeded regulation that only makes it hard for business should be swept away. A radical leftist would not agree, again and again, that we must keep America's businesses strong.

Dare I ask, where are you getting your impressions of the man?

[Big Mac]

Conservatives who say Obama isn't moderate are not being precise with their language. Clearly, he's moderate in terms of his policies in a number of areas, much more moderate than he made himself out to be on the campaign trail especially on war related issues. He has also shown moderation on his stance toward Israel, I think it's fair to say. He's much less supportive of Israel personally in comparison to any president prior to him save for Jimmy Carter, but his personal stance toward Israel hasn't resulted in much of an appreciable difference in Israel policy as compared to the last two administrations. (I would have expected his administration not to veto this most recent Arab resolution against Israel, but it reluctantly did.) I think what conservatives are focusing on, though, is a belief that Obama is a extreme left-wing in his personal politics. It's just that his personal left-wing extremism doesn't translate to the most extreme left-wing policies across the board, although on certain fronts he has pushed his left-wing agenda over all objections (i.e. Obamacare).

When it comes to the budget, Obama is a moderate. He continues the moderate, big spending policies of his predecessor, except moreso. The problem is, we need a fiscally conservative radical.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Helmling, I'm glad to see that you're beginning to consider that you may not have all the answers.

For me, there's no argument you can make in favor of Entitlements that can convince me they're positive, especially not the general entitlements people have come to expect/demand (Social Security and Medicare). (Limited, needs based entitlements make some sense in a prosperous country as long as they don't run out of control cost wise and abuse is carefully restrained.) People should not come to expect/demand the government to give them money for doing nothing or to give them heavily subsidized (and price distorting) health care for doing nothing. It's unhealthy to create that kind of dependence, and it's unjust to rob from the productive portion of the population to fund those programs. Government creates more misery than happiness by making welfare addicts out of its citizenry than by the alternative - giving them freedom to provide for themselves - especially since entitlements for all is an unsustainable pyramid scheme that has to invariably topple.

In the 18th, 19th and up to the early 20th Century, Americans didn't believe in taking handouts from government. The popular culture found it shameful to be on the government dole. But then we had a radical change with the Great Depression and the New Deal, after which an entitlement mindset began to take hold among many Americans. I think you can agree that the things that made America great were our Constitutionally protected liberty and individual rights, not high taxation, entitlement programs and enormous government. Of course, as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's not just the public entitlements that are killing us. It's also the enormous government payrolls, what I call government employee entitlements, that combined with the general public entitlements consume the vast majority of government expenditures and are rapidly bankrupting US.

The day of reckoning for many decades of Progressivism and Statism is very near. We'll find out if today's Americans are prepared to return to self-reliance and liberty or if they're going to allow the American experiment to die because of decades of Progressive/Statist/Socialist brainwashing and addiction to government benefits. The fights between state governments and the corrupt unions that we see today are the preliminary battles in this war for the heart of the country. We haven't even seen the fight warm up on the federal level yet.

I've really got to disagree with you on health care. Social Security I can imagine a really sound argument against. I can see a humanitarian government opting for subsidized food, even subsidized shelter for people unable to provide for themselves, but sweeping social security--that doesn't seem to be a necessary measure for government to undertake in the interests of a just society.

But health care? How can we, as a civilized people, continue to subject something as fundamental as health care to the cruel indifference of the market. I mean, really, what do you think when you read about kids with cancer whose families are going bankrupt trying to pay for care? How can something like that not convince you that we must, if we wish to be a humane and just society, regard health care as a common good in need of heavy regulation, if not outright socialization. I mean, Jesus, we treat utilities as natural monopolies to keep prices down, but our health care system is the most expensive in the world, while our infant mortality rates are among the highest among developed countries (one of many factors that often gets us ranked 37th or so in health care quality--I repeat, despite paying the most for our care!).

You point out that entitlements are bankrupting the country, but how is it solely a matter of self-reliance when the economy has been shifted so dramatically toward the wealthy. The gap between rich and poor has grown along with the growth of these entitlements. I'm really started to think, as indicated in the initial post, that these are not separate trends. I think we're seeing two sides of the same coin. What will happen to those corporate profits if entitlements disappear? How much demand will vanish from the equation?

The shift you talk about during the New Deal had a lot to do with the changing face of capitalism. People no longer felt it was shameful because they started to get a sense of what they were up against. As more and more wealth became concentrated in the hands of a few, ordinary people felt helpless against what Steinbeck called "the machine." Whatever cultural shift is responsible for the changes you perceive, I think it must be tied to the change in distribution of wealth. If you create a feudal society of wealthy elites towering over the great bulk of populace in economic power, then they will either become dependent or rise up in revolt.

You applaud me for admitting that I don't have all the answers. Truth be told, if I ever pretended I did, it was more for rhetorical flourish than anything else. I'm always questioning. I think maybe you need to also. You're very quick to dismiss a huge proportion of the population as being brainwashed by socialist ideologies, but socialist ideologies were a response to the injustice of the modern capitalist system. The two are intimately interconnected.

So I would say, no, I do not agree that what made America great was just our constitionally granted liberties. After all, at the inception, the republic tolerated slavery, only really extended citizenship to landowners, and kept women marginalized. Throughout its history, America has denied liberty to many demographics and oppressed others--everyone from the Native Americans who were here before any Europeans to my own Irish ancestors in the 19th century.

Frankly America has failed to be the bastion of liberty is pretends to be.

And yet, America is undoubtedly and has consistently been "great."

Why?

I think it's the dream. The myth of progress and self-determination that has drawn countless generations to our shores. It's the idea of that liberty, not its reality. Maybe the cultural shift you decry has occurred because more and more, that dream looks more and more like mythology. The people of this country only see social mobility in celebrities and freak entrepreneurs like Gates or Zuckerberg, but not in the steady climb of progress that used to be the hallmark of the American dream.

Maybe I'm putting too much stock in one dimension of our national psyche, but when I look at what's happening, I can't subscribe to your version of the problem. This culture of dependency doesn't seem to really resemble in what I see in my economically disadvantaged students. But I do see kids who have no sense that they can be more, that are not possessed by the American Dream that made us great. To explain that, I look more to the ever widening gap between rich and poor.

If we addressed that, and somehow reversed the trend toward inequality of income and wealth, then maybe we wouldn't have so many people who need these "entitlements" in the first place.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Conservatives who say Obama isn't moderate are not being precise with their language. Clearly, he's moderate in terms of his policies in a number of areas, much more moderate than he made himself out to be on the campaign trail especially on war related issues. He has also shown moderation on his stance toward Israel, I think it's fair to say. He's much less supportive of Israel personally in comparison to any president prior to him save for Jimmy Carter, but his personal stance toward Israel hasn't resulted in much of an appreciable difference in Israel policy as compared to the last two administrations. (I would have expected his administration not to veto this most recent Arab resolution against Israel, but it reluctantly did.) I think what conservatives are focusing on, though, is a belief that Obama is a extreme left-wing in his personal politics. It's just that his personal left-wing extremism doesn't translate to the most extreme left-wing policies across the board, although on certain fronts he has pushed his left-wing agenda over all objections (i.e. Obamacare).

When it comes to the budget, Obama is a moderate. He continues the moderate, big spending policies of his predecessor, except moreso. The problem is, we need a fiscally conservative radical.

I disagree. I think that's who we'll need next. After we're out of the hole.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I first became aware of Barrack Obama when an excerpt of his Audacity of Hope was published in Time. In it, he wrote eloquently about the centrality of compromise in democracy, while having to make allowances for the fact that sometimes it is the uncompromising who create progress (as in ending slavery). That is very much the Barrack Obama I heard in the State of the Union. He called for a lot of compromise in that address. Did you not see it or read it?

The things you're saying about Obama just don't seem grounded in reality. A radical leftist would've rather seen all the bail out money go into relief efforts for people affected by the economic crash, not to the too-big-to-fail banks and corporations. A radical leftist would not pledge to try to make sure that unneeded regulation that only makes it hard for business should be swept away. A radical leftist would not agree, again and again, that we must keep America's businesses strong.

Dare I ask, where are you getting your impressions of the man?

They are the words he said and hoped you would believe. His radical agenda had him pissing away a ton of money without much to show for it. The bailaouts could have been spent on actual stuff that works to get us producing again. His oil drilling ban is a prime example to keep our economy from rebounding. He knows nothing about growing businesses, just shaking them down. UNIONS cost more and produce less than non-union work places. He's all for causing trouble in various states, using his campaign thugs and union creeps to intimidate. His Obamacare is taxing before producing. How statist. Hes going after every energy producer, any place that would make living in the US cheaper. He's jacked up the number of government tamperers, regulators, lawyers, tax collectors and such, while not killing off the regulations that the democrats filled all those bills with the last two years. Stuff the democrats didn't even read before passing. Sure you are getting screwed by the leftist agenda. He hasn't done to much on the international scene either. Hes been sorry for everything we ever did, for what ever reasons he thinks we did it for, and he's sucked up to every dictator and terrorist and insulted the US long time allies. The rest of the world knows that while Obama is president, we are not to be counted on for help. He's ruining the US from inside with his faulty policies, radical advisors, and his own personality issues. Those who voted for him should be ashamed.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

They are the words he said and hoped you would believe. His radical agenda had him pissing away a ton of money without much to show for it. The bailaouts could have been spent on actual stuff that works to get us producing again. His oil drilling ban is a prime example to keep our economy from rebounding. He knows nothing about growing businesses, just shaking them down. UNIONS cost more and produce less than non-union work places. He's all for causing trouble in various states, using his campaign thugs and union creeps to intimidate. His Obamacare is taxing before producing. How statist. Hes going after every energy producer, any place that would make living in the US cheaper. He's jacked up the number of government tamperers, regulators, lawyers, tax collectors and such, while not killing off the regulations that the democrats filled all those bills with the last two years. Stuff the democrats didn't even read before passing. Sure you are getting screwed by the leftist agenda. He hasn't done to much on the international scene either. Hes been sorry for everything we ever did, for what ever reasons he thinks we did it for, and he's sucked up to every dictator and terrorist and insulted the US long time allies. The rest of the world knows that while Obama is president, we are not to be counted on for help. He's ruining the US from inside with his faulty policies, radical advisors, and his own personality issues. Those who voted for him should be ashamed.

Drilling oil would hardly result in gains for our economy. Our supply is way past peak. All we can do is slow down the pace of price increases and it would take years to build up the capacity to even do that. It's much wiser, since even oil would be a long-term investment, to invest in renewable energy that will still be effective when the world oil supply has dwindled and won't continue to contribute to climate change and pollution.

Obama has clearly restored our ties with the rest of the world. So I really have no idea what you could be talking about with that point. If the U.S. is unable to "help" anyone else around the world today it is because we are spread far too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, the two campaigns that "insulted" a number of long time US allies. As to dictators, it is Obama who is standing up to Middle East dictators like Mubarak and demanding they listen to their people, whereas the last several administrations have coddled him in return for his cooperation. The only regime I can think of where his policies seem pretty hypocritical is Israel, but since you cling like white on rice to every other conservative talking point, I'm assuming you're all in favor of the US's recent veto of the UN resolution calling for an end to divisive settlements.

Really, your complaints are vague, angry and just don't seem to have much to do with reality.

[Helmling]

So, here's what I'm thinking:

Back in the 19th Century, Marx (and others) saw clearly that global capital's trajectory was exploitive and would lead to even greater inequality than past historical milieus.

At the turn of the century, the rise of robber barons in the Gilded Age bore this prediction out. Trust-busting and other populist movements ameliorated some of the rage that Marx predicted would lead to global revolution--though many communist revolutions did take place, sometimes in unexpected places like Russia itself.

The global capitalist machine, though, ground on. By the 1920's, the people of the United States had been thoroughly indoctrinated in the role they were to play within this schema. Becoming a nation of consumers and speculators, Americans consumed on credit and invested in a stock market that experience wild growth.

Of course, when the bubble burst on this speculation, the house of cards collapsed. Without demand, the machine could not grow.

The New Deal mirrored the blending of socialism with capitalism that was to dominate the economies of the developed world in the post-War era. Though spending for the war brought the United States out of the depression with wealth enough to help rebuild the world and even start reversing the deficits that had been incurred during the Depression, the basic tension between the populace's need to supply demand and capital's need to concentrate wealth at the top of the ladder continued.

Later, as Chicago School economists saw that capital could not continue to feed global capital's need for unlimited growth in the face of protectionist, pro-labor and progressive taxation, world leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were seduced into trickle-down economic policies.

The problem was, of course, that the growth Chicago School economists saw as necessary still had to rely on demand from the populace as a whole. "Entitlements" continued to grow while real income was stagnant and GDP growth--and the wealthy's share of it--soared.

That's where we are now. Our society is based now on BOTH entitlements to prop up demand and capital growth sustained by tax breaks, minimizing labor payouts and other measures to drive up profit without regard to social or environmental cost.

It is a tension that more and more, looks to be heading toward disaster. I no longer believe we can concentrate our energy on either side of this dilemma. The two trends are inextricably linked.

Only a complete reordering of our society can produce a more sustainable, healthier system--and I fear that will not be possible before the current order collapses under its own absurd contradictions.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Drilling oil would hardly result in gains for our economy. Our supply is way past peak. All we can do is slow down the pace of price increases and it would take years to build up the capacity to even do that. It's much wiser, since even oil would be a long-term investment, to invest in renewable energy that will still be effective when the world oil supply has dwindled and won't continue to contribute to climate change and pollution.

Obama has clearly restored our ties with the rest of the world. So I really have no idea what you could be talking about with that point. If the U.S. is unable to "help" anyone else around the world today it is because we are spread far too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, the two campaigns that "insulted" a number of long time US allies. As to dictators, it is Obama who is standing up to Middle East dictators like Mubarak and demanding they listen to their people, whereas the last several administrations have coddled him in return for his cooperation. The only regime I can think of where his policies seem pretty hypocritical is Israel, but since you cling like white on rice to every other conservative talking point, I'm assuming you're all in favor of the US's recent veto of the UN resolution calling for an end to divisive settlements.

Really, your complaints are vague, angry and just don't seem to have much to do with reality.

Ask the UK about the US blathering our agreements to the Russians as part of the lousy START 2 treaty. He also kissed up to the ChiComs, while dissing the Israeli's.

As far as oil drilling. Even when in 2008, that Bush lifted constraints to oil drilling off our coasts, the price went down at the pump, which gave the average guy a few extra bucks a week to live off of. Our energy needs can't be so quickly altered as you assume in your response. Oil and Coal still need to be acquired cheaply for us to get out of the current democrat caused depression.

the UN?? LOL They are of absolutely no value at all.

[sek929]

Our gasoline is cheaper than everywhere else on earth, yet we still piss and moan about it...

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Our gasoline is cheaper than everywhere else on earth, yet we still piss and moan about it...

Because it is tied to the survivability of this economy, more so than any other nation on earth. If gas reaches $5/gal with food prices where they are at, we are ****ed.

[sek929]

We overuse gasoline more than any nation on earth. If push came to shove people would survive just fine with $5 a gallon gas, they'd simply have to give up the gas thirsty unsustainable lifestyle they know and love.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I was thinking about Kerrigan's question about the economy in one of the threads below and then also thinking about some of the things ebuddy was pointing out in a discussion we were having--maybe the same thread?

I replied to you in that thread and instead of responding to me there, you're making me chase you into your new thread? Okay... do-over!

Here's what I'm seeing:
First off, it's very obvious to me that corporations and big money are pretty much writing their ticket and that this has been going on since Reagan's Voodoo Economics. They get tailored tax write offs, privatization of everything under the sun, and generally anything they think will drive their profits higher gets pushed through the government in the name of growth and jobs--even though we all know most of those jobs are created for low wages halfway across the world.

With all due respect Helmling, this is amazingly shallow rhetoric. Since there is really no way to adjudicate the whole of your "query", I'll address the basic sentiment behind it. IMO your focus on corporations and big money writing their tickets is curious considering government leadership is writing your laws. You think the Conservatives of this forum decrying socialism appreciate the growing marriage between the government and its chosen "winners"? Hell no man. Maybe this'll start to sink a little in separating traditional liberals from the neo-lib Progressives.

I have no clue what you're talking about in regards to "privatization of everything under the sun, and generally anything they think will drive their profits higher gets pushed through the government in the name of growth and jobs." There's simply too many "everythings" and "anythings" to quantify into an argument to address so I'll go with the "tax write-offs" argument. WIth US Corporate tax rates among the highest in the world and most calling for reform of a progressive tax code that has the top 5% paying 50% of all taxes, I really don't see a lot of substance to the tax argument.

BUT, it also has to be evident to even the most die-hard supporter of programs like Social Security and Medicare that the costs of those programs are rising and will rise astronomically when the demographics in this country shift as we have more retirees than workers. There's quite compelling evidence that the system as currently organized is unsustainable.

Agreed.

We've all heard the quote (of disputed origin) that democracies always fail when people discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public coffers...so what if we're both wrong because both sides are doing this? What if, even worse, the two trends are really somehow connected--that one is feeding off the other?

Easy. Close the public coffers. No bailing out of failed people and failed businesses. It only creates riskier behaviors that exacerbate failure.

What if, basically, our trajectory as a civilization is fundamentally flawed?

This sounds like an old man lamenting; "they just don't make 'em like they used to anymore." The problems we're facing today have been the same problems we've seen throughout history as the centralized authority grows out of its own shoes. Remember, it is the ideal of limited government that is the new ideal and the newest system of governance. If you see an increase in this "conservative" ideology outside the US, it may just be that they're finally coming around. Ironically, the US is clearly not.

The left says that we need to tax the top bracket (I've been arguing this vociferously lately) in order to restore balance and equity, but the right says that that kind of taxation would slow growth--and our whole economic system is now addicted to growth.

If you're not growing, you're dying. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the desire for growth as long as it is real growth. The policies that bolster artificial growth are those of the government as they create winners. Bailouts and Entitlement. The US is addicted to entitlement. Look what happens in France when you want to raise the retirement age by two years; picketing, riots, etc... What of the US when you ask that people actually contribute to their own healthcare and retirement; picketing, screaming, fake doctor's notes to get off work, officials running to hide in the State your governor is trying to lure business from. Once it is doled out, it cannot be taken back without extremely unpopular and contentious measures. Best to avoid that mess out of the gate.

The right says that we need to cut deficits by slashing services, but the left counters that this would leave working class people adrift in human misery and undercut the foundation of the economy by further subtracting from demand.

FUD. Too much has been spent mitigating symptoms of problems, creating moral hazards, contentment, and a false sense of security from the bottom-up.

Can a balance really be struck or does this tension implicit in modern global capitalism inevitably lead to collapse?

There is no perfect institution of man. It will inevitably collapse. Systems of governance that do not acknowledge human nature in its authority are doomed to failure.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by sek929 

We overuse gasoline more than any nation on earth. If push came to shove people would survive just fine with $5 a gallon gas, they'd simply have to give up the gas thirsty unsustainable lifestyle they know and love.

Oh yeah. Those products walk themselves to the stores.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With all due respect Helmling, this is amazingly shallow rhetoric. Since there is really no way to adjudicate the whole of your "query", I'll address the basic sentiment behind it. IMO your focus on corporations and big money writing their tickets is curious considering government leadership is writing your laws. You think the Conservatives of this forum decrying socialism appreciate the growing marriage between the government and its chosen "winners"? Hell no man. Maybe this'll start to sink a little in separating traditional liberals from the neo-lib Progressives.

I have no clue what you're talking about in regards to "privatization of everything under the sun, and generally anything they think will drive their profits higher gets pushed through the government in the name of growth and jobs." There's simply too many "everythings" and "anythings" to quantify into an argument to address so I'll go with the "tax write-offs" argument. WIth US Corporate tax rates among the highest in the world and most calling for reform of a progressive tax code that has the top 5% paying 50% of all taxes, I really don't see a lot of substance to the tax argument.


Agreed.


Easy. Close the public coffers. No bailing out of failed people and failed businesses. It only creates riskier behaviors that exacerbate failure.


This sounds like an old man lamenting; "they just don't make 'em like they used to anymore." The problems we're facing today have been the same problems we've seen throughout history as the centralized authority grows out of its own shoes. Remember, it is the ideal of limited government that is the new ideal and the newest system of governance. If you see an increase in this "conservative" ideology outside the US, it may just be that they're finally coming around. Ironically, the US is clearly not.


If you're not growing, you're dying. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the desire for growth as long as it is real growth. The policies that bolster artificial growth are those of the government as they create winners. Bailouts and Entitlement. The US is addicted to entitlement. Look what happens in France when you want to raise the retirement age by two years; picketing, riots, etc... What of the US when you ask that people actually contribute to their own healthcare and retirement; picketing, screaming, fake doctor's notes to get off work, officials running to hide in the State your governor is trying to lure business from. Once it is doled out, it cannot be taken back without extremely unpopular and contentious measures. Best to avoid that mess out of the gate.


FUD. Too much has been spent mitigating symptoms of problems, creating moral hazards, contentment, and a false sense of security from the bottom-up.


There is no perfect institution of man. It will inevitably collapse. Systems of governance that do not acknowledge human nature in its authority are doomed to failure.

I know we've, long ago, been over what being conservative means to you, but I'm talking about the actions of the "conservatives" in government. Privatization: Look at our military for a good example. No more mess cooks. Corporations provide our meals for the troops. A hurricane wipes out a city: Businesses salivate to replace everything that was there before and government gives them a free pass. Lobbyists go to Washington with wishlists like kids go to Santa's lap. Yeah, on the books the US corporate tax rate may be high, but most of the biggest don't pay close to that, if anything at all. They navigate loopholes effortlessly--why? Because those loopholes were written right into law for them because they bribe--er, contribute to the campaigns of the legislators who write the codes.

And there is something wrong with the idea of unlimited growth. It's an idea chewing up our natural resources at a horrific rate. We do not have to accept your dichotomy: death or growth. That you really believe that's a logical dichotomy shows how deeply engrained the capitalist mindset is. But it's not real and it's far from logical. A population that outstrips its resources will lead to its own demise. Balance and sustainability make more sense in the long run.

And the people aren't out in the streets protesting that they have to pay a share of their health care. They're out there because they're going to be taking home less money for their families and because the governor is using a budget crisis as an excuse to strip the provisions that have given them a sense of security in their careers. And it's a crisis that wouldn't exist if the governor hadn't pushed for corporate tax cuts. They're not union thugs. They're not greedy or selfish. They're people who've dedicated themselves to public service in the hopes of a little security and now the governor wants to undermine that security to advance the profits of people who already have a lot more than these poor teachers and firefighters.

I'd like to hear you, as a conservative, address the inequality question. GDP has grown astronomically since the ascent of Voodoo economics, but the middle class has seen its economic clout shrink by comparison. Most of the economic growth in the last generation has been concentrated at the top.

Do you not see the paradox? Where does the demand come from for that income growth at the top? A middle and working class that is pushed to consume more and more in order to maintain that level of growth. Is it any wonder that said classes cannot save for retirement or put away money for medical emergencies? That they wallow in debt? That they lean ever more heavily on entitlements?

Dammit, man, look! They're not separate things. The entitlements you decry are the inevitable consequence of the laissez faire economics conservatives have made sacrosanct. You'll give me an "agreed" when I hit a point that's in line with your dogma, but you won't consider for a moment that there might be something to rest of what I'm saying here.

I've been thinking about the last line I wrote all day. Will this house of cards fall down?

You say, "no bailing out failed people." I guess it wasn't you, but I distinctly remember somebody on these boards arguing for the conservative point of view like that and then admitting that he had accepted government aid when he and his wife were starting out.

What if those failed people are working families with kids who get cancer, ebuddy? Can you really just tell them they shouldn't have engaged in the risky behavior of having children in a world this toxic? Is that how it would be?

Government represents our collective will. If you had your way, it sounds like a callous sentiment that would guide our world. Grow or die. The failed should just accept their own failure. I hear this from a lot of conservatives, all right.

The funny thing is that they call themselves Christians. Whose "entitlements" would Jesus cut off, I wonder?

So in pondering the possibility of collapse, I found myself thinking spiritually. Not being a Christian, though, I drifted toward the Buddhist ascription to seek out the middle way. I hope there is such a thing. I hope there's a way for us to find a way to have our government reflect our compassion--a part of human nature you don't seem to give a lot of credit--while society still challenges our competitive instincts. That's what I hope for...and you?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I replied to you in that thread and instead of responding to me there, you're making me chase you into your new thread? Okay... do-over!

Policy should be geared toward attracting that money here where it can work for everyone while creating an environment of progress, innovation, and advancement, not pushing it elsewhere while bolstering contentment at the bottom income class by mitigating symptoms of disparity.

Sorry, about that. So I stole some of what you said over there because in that post you did, exactly what I asked you to in my last post here: addressed income inequality.

What you say about policy sounds...well, great. How, though, does that at all resemble the last 30 years of economic policy by conservatives in this country?

How else, other than a narrative of exploitation, do you explain the failure of free markets to provide that opportunity for everyone? Don't you see, ebuddy, your ideology has failed to deliver as surely as liberal ideology has. What if your belief system about how conservatism is all about self-reliance and responsibility is just as much a myth as the liberal justification of entitlements as a mechanism of social justice?

So I ask again, what if we're all wrong?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by sek929 

We overuse gasoline more than any nation on earth. If push came to shove people would survive just fine with $5 a gallon gas, they'd simply have to give up the gas thirsty unsustainable lifestyle they know and love.

And how do people afford food and transit and everything else affected by gas prices. High gas prices don't just affect car drivers but everything else including the poor who don't even own cars.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Oh yeah. Those products walk themselves to the stores.

Originally Posted by Athens 

And how do people afford food and transit and everything else affected by gas prices. High gas prices don't just affect car drivers but everything else including the poor who don't even own cars.

You're missing my point, obviously the price of oil is tied to literally everything we buy, but what effect would taking 100 million inefficient gas guzzlers off the road have on the consumption and overall price of fuel? Maybe instead of two SUVs for the family maybe one Honda Civic will have to do, hrm?

Americans still want their powerful vehicles with big engines, and will eventually be forced to buy sensible vehicles once gas continues to climb up and up. I'm sick of the tactics politicians use to feed off of the public's ignorance on this matter. They get their votes all the while companies like Exxon make record profits year after year. Our gas is dirt cheap, and we should be thankful we are able to still live our wasteful lives like we do. The idea that we start drilling in our own backyard and everything will be ok is the most short-sighted notion I've ever heard.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by sek929 

You're missing my point, obviously the price of oil is tied to literally everything we buy, but what effect would taking 100 million inefficient gas guzzlers off the road have on the consumption and overall price of fuel? Maybe instead of two SUVs for the family maybe one Honda Civic will have to do, hrm?

Americans still want their powerful vehicles with big engines, and will eventually be forced to buy sensible vehicles once gas continues to climb up and up. I'm sick of the tactics politicians use to feed off of the public's ignorance on this matter. They get their votes all the while companies like Exxon make record profits year after year. Our gas is dirt cheap, and we should be thankful we are able to still live our wasteful lives like we do. The idea that we start drilling in our own backyard and everything will be ok is the most short-sighted notion I've ever heard.

Wont make a difference with China rolling out more cars at a rate which will put it with more calls then all the cars in Amerika.

Here are the solutions, something I was writing for something else but applies here too.


The solution to our environmental mess starts with electricity. The first and most important part is to establish enough electrical generation to drive an electrical driven economy. This starts with using Solar Power, Wind Power, Nuclear Power, Thermal Power and Hydro Power. No Coal, Gas or Oil generation, nothing that revolves around combustion with very few exceptions.

Once we have sources of electricity that is all clean the next step is to transform our transportation. All public transit buses, Light Rail Trains, Heavy Rail trains become Trolley or guide rail electric based. Cars get replaced with electric battery powered cars. Those that need range could get hydrogen fuel cell based cars. All business and home parking stalls would need fast charge electric stations.

Transportation of goods would be through hydrogen fuel cell powered trucks, electric trains and nuclear powered ships.
Construction trucks, lawn mowers and other specialty purpose devices would all need to be converted over to electric battery powered or hydrogen fuel cell powered.

Oil refineries would be replaced with hydrogen fuel production plants for fuel cells.

Home/business heating would be accomplished through electric heaters and thermal heating.

The only exceptions are out in the bush with no access to power generation or in climates that fuel cells are not good in. The point of cleaning the air is not about global health and global warming but clean air for the populations in the cities and towns. Local human health in urban areas. A net benefit is this also helps the world as a whole. Because combustion electrical generation creates so much pollution that air pollution still drifts into urban centers all over the globe no matter where its placed.

Waste Pollution. All garbage should be collected via electric or hydrogen fuel celled trucks, then transported by electric train to one continental dumping ground that will service for all garbage on the continent. This is a better solution then distributing waste in every urban location. The location for this needs to be a place with low animal life, no accessible underground water and land locked away from rivers. Big massive deep pits constructed to hold the garbage with a methane collection system to capture the gases produced and this methane would be burned to generate power to power the facility. Combusted methane is better than releasing it to the environment.

Water networks, cities need to have 2 water systems. One that feeds toilets and sprinklers and one that delivers water to taps and showers. Recycled and long stored water supplies processed enough to make safe for toilets and sprinklers and car washes separate from fresh water supplies so clean drinking water is not wasted. The closed loop system would also help keep toilet waste from entering fresh water supplies which contain chemicals and antibiotics from human usage.
Animal farming production needs to be taken indoors so the methane produced by livestock can be captured and combusted.

Not Finished, still writing this but thats where im at.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I know we've, long ago, been over what being conservative means to you, but I'm talking about the actions of the "conservatives" in government. Privatization: Look at our military for a good example. No more mess cooks. Corporations provide our meals for the troops.

Wait, our military isn't served cooked food? Do you have some evidence that a private company hadn't always provided their food? Otherwise, I really don't have a problem with private industry providing food to our troops. Getting in bed with the insurance lobby and mandating that everyone buy health insurance on the other hand...

A hurricane wipes out a city: Businesses salivate to replace everything that was there before and government gives them a free pass.

Certainly hurricanes that wipe out entire cities are a horrible thing, but... is there anyone else you'd expect to replace everything that was there? And what the heck does "and government gives them a free pass" mean? Seriously, your complaint is so vague Helmling it's hard to tell where to even start. Private companies are supposed to provide services in exchange for money. This has always been the way of things. Their concern for the bottom-line BTW, means they are statistically more solvent, efficient, and effective at providing these services than their public counterpart.

Lobbyists go to Washington with wishlists like kids go to Santa's lap. Yeah, on the books the US corporate tax rate may be high, but most of the biggest don't pay close to that, if anything at all. They navigate loopholes effortlessly--why? Because those loopholes were written right into law for them because they bribe--er, contribute to the campaigns of the legislators who write the codes.

• Small businesses represent 99.7% of all employer firms in the US. Your ideology is founded in a punitive attitude toward wealth that is nothing short of a class warfare that carpet bombs villages in its lack of regard for what actually drives the US economy.
• Who are "most of the biggest"?
• What is "that" in "don't pay close to that" and what percentage of their tax liability is being evaded?
• Which companies are paying no corporate taxes at all Helmling?
• They don't "navigate loopholes effortlessly". The US tax code is over 2500 pages long and requires a battery of tax attorneys to comprehend its legalese.
• What tax codes were written specifically for which companies? How does this address the problem of corruption and croneyism in Washington?

And there is something wrong with the idea of unlimited growth. It's an idea chewing up our natural resources at a horrific rate. We do not have to accept your dichotomy: death or growth. That you really believe that's a logical dichotomy shows how deeply engrained the capitalist mindset is. But it's not real and it's far from logical. A population that outstrips its resources will lead to its own demise. Balance and sustainability make more sense in the long run.

Likewise, we do not have to accept your premise that our natural resources are being chewed up at a horrific rate. It's not real and the subsequent "never let a crisis go to waste" kneejerk legislation that comes from this type of fear mongering manifests in more expensive, bloated, do-nothing bureaucracy that shows up with their handcuffs out after the burglar has left your home. You know... for the children.

And the people aren't out in the streets protesting that they have to pay a share of their health care. They're out there because they're going to be taking home less money for their families...

FUD. They maintain collective bargaining rights on their wages. Unions are busing protestors in because they need the automatic payroll deductions. The bill by Walker is proposing that teachers will have to fund 5.8% of their pension contributions and 12.6% of the overall cost of their healthcare. Most are responsible for funding up to 50% of their retirement and pay upwards of 15% of their health care which is coming out of their pay without a collective bargaining right to protect them against it. They can accept the cutbacks or risk losing their jobs altogether. That's the choice they have.

and because the governor is using a budget crisis as an excuse to strip the provisions that have given them a sense of security in their careers. And it's a crisis that wouldn't exist if the governor hadn't pushed for corporate tax cuts.

Incorrect and has already been addressed.

• Sometimes the truth doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. According to Robert Lang, the director of the Wisconsin bipartisan Fiscal Bureau; the tax cuts were not responsible for the shortfall. The WI budget identifies a pending payment under the Minnesota/Wisconsin Income Tax Reciprocity Program and related shortfalls for 2010-11. The Minnesota/Wisconsin payment and the identified shortfalls total $258.1 million. These amounts are not reflected in the January 31 condition statement because legislative and executive action would be required between February 1, 2011, and June 30, 2011, to address them. If the entire $258.1 million was to be addressed before June 30, 2011, the gross general fund balance would be -$136.7
• Don't buy the lie. There is no moral law that you can't both cut taxes and cut spending to stimulate the economy.
• The government does not exist to employ people for job security.

They're not union thugs. They're not greedy or selfish. They're people who've dedicated themselves to public service in the hopes of a little security and now the governor wants to undermine that security to advance the profits of people who already have a lot more than these poor teachers and firefighters.

Unions are employee cartels that reward mediocrity and keep the workforce artificially low to bolster wages. They can take less from the poor telemarketers, poor secretaries, poor waitresses, poor daycare providers, and the remainder of poor people in Wisconsin that don't make $52k a year + $26k in bennies, enjoy 200 days off a year, and don't get "collective bargaining" rights at the table of government legislation and expenditure or they can join the unemployment line. In fact, they should be thanking the good and wise governor for saving their jobs. If he's guilty of "busting" unions, the unions are guilty of "busting" Wisconsin. BTW, if you were fighting for "workers rights", you'd be fighting for their right not to have an automatic payroll deduction for membership in a union they feel is doing nothing for them.

I'd like to hear you, as a conservative, address the inequality question. GDP has grown astronomically since the ascent of Voodoo economics, but the middle class has seen its economic clout shrink by comparison. Most of the economic growth in the last generation has been concentrated at the top.

Already addressed. What makes the rich, uber-rich is their aggressive investment strategies, risks, and shrewd spending habits. Should gambling be illegal altogether in your opinion or just winning?

RE: Inequality. Still way too vague so I'll have to address what I think you mean by "inequality"; the poor. Argumentative liberals will deride conservatives for their lack of compassion for the poor, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is a very small portion of US welfare spending actually goes to the poor. Spending on AFDC/TANF and food stamps for example comprises less than 2% of welfare spending in the US and by far the most is going toward the middle class. Social Security and senior citizens, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, students, broadcasting, the arts, Amtrak, and on and on... The US is a center-right country, the most philanthropic on the globe, and do not hesitate in helping the "unequal". What's happening today is theft, plain and simple.

Conversely, I'd like to see you, as a liberal, address the fact that some people want to work for a living and some don't. While you're at it, you can address why some people want to save money and some want to spend frivolously, some are fat, some are thin, some are ugly, some are gorgeous, some are genius, some aren't...

Do you not see the paradox? Where does the demand come from for that income growth at the top? A middle and working class that is pushed to consume more and more in order to maintain that level of growth. Is it any wonder that said classes cannot save for retirement or put away money for medical emergencies? That they wallow in debt? That they lean ever more heavily on entitlements?

C'mon man, "pushed to consume more"? Really? The only ones being forced into anything are the ones subjected to government intrusion. Absolutely everything else is conscious choice; the choice to spend more on eating out and entertainment than they do on their own health care, or more house than they can afford, or more car(s) than they can afford, etc... there is no gun to anyone's head. Unsustainable growth will lead to companies deemed "too large to fail" which earns them government bailouts, a false sense of security, and more lessons of the free market unlearned. Otherwise, solvent, long-term sustained growth is not a problem and most businesses aren't the government-bolstered Corporate monoliths many like to use as their red herrings for class warfare.

Dammit, man, look! They're not separate things. The entitlements you decry are the inevitable consequence of the laissez faire economics conservatives have made sacrosanct. You'll give me an "agreed" when I hit a point that's in line with your dogma, but you won't consider for a moment that there might be something to rest of what I'm saying here.

There's something to it, but the lack of substance to these complaints does not acknowledge reality and doesn't warrant serious analysis IMO. We're likely simply at an irreconcilable disagreement here.

You say, "no bailing out failed people." I guess it wasn't you, but I distinctly remember somebody on these boards arguing for the conservative point of view like that and then admitting that he had accepted government aid when he and his wife were starting out.

Oh this was me Helmling. It was a young, irresponsible, much more liberal teen-me that knew it all and moved out shortly after my mother passed when I was 17 yrs old. To be clear, I'll refer to my earlier statement about the percentage of welfare actually going to the poor. Most, myself included, have absolutely no problem getting someone truly needy onto their feet, but this is the sole reason for a long line of complaints about a system designed to create dependency. Would you rather get this message from someone raised up on silver spoons in gated communities who sleep one night in a cardboard box as part of a college-frat, dog and pony show of compassion or does it not mean something to have first-hand experience with the system?

I learned that you can get .50 on the dollar in foodstamps. EBT fixed this, but many problems remain. While McDonald's and other chains are being hammered by local governments for serving shoddy food because they are big and rich, the government will buy you Oreo cookies, potato chips, soda, candy, and 3 times the recommended daily allowance of protein as the single largest contributor to obesity in the US which is much more prevalent in lower percentile incomes. I learned that you must work less to get more. My wife and I both literally had to cut our work hours in half to meet the requirements for Medicaid and WIC. I learned that poverty and welfare are a cycle that must be broken for prosperity. They are a hinderance to success. Your children are raised up into a lifestyle where it is normal to collect from someone else and they will perpetuate the cycle for themselves and their children. The most difficult time in our lives lasted about a year and a half when we decided to shirk the handouts, take up full-time employment, and struggle through breaking the cycle. I eventually moved into management, bolstered my resume, took it abroad, and eventually have done much better for myself. My wife has mirrored this success and our family is now in an above-average situation with one kid in college and another on the way.

Enough about me Helmling. Tell me a little about yourself. Have you ever lived in poverty? Do you know what it is, how it works, and what it looks like in a family of four? Do you have kids? Do you employ the same philosophies on their rearing that you suppose of governing philosophy?

What if those failed people are working families with kids who get cancer, ebuddy? Can you really just tell them they shouldn't have engaged in the risky behavior of having children in a world this toxic? Is that how it would be?

It's always a kid with cancer isn't it? Can't you see the FUD in this? Can't you see how your children continue to be used as pawns to justify sweeping government intrusion into your life? The fact is, if you have cancer in the US your chances of beating it are far better here than anywhere. Don't take my word for it, there are more resources for cancer than just about any other affliction you can imagine. I'm much more worried how one in poverty would treat their child for croup or measles, the flu, etc... as these are the crippling unexpected expenses most people face on a daily basis. Without rehashing all of the details I've been providing on health care the past two years, suffice it to say there are numerous, reasonable means of tackling these issues without bloating the government and saddling our poor children tomorrow with today's spending whimsy.

Government represents our collective will. If you had your way, it sounds like a callous sentiment that would guide our world. Grow or die. The failed should just accept their own failure. I hear this from a lot of conservatives, all right.

It's no different than how you'd raise your own children Helmling. For whatever reason when it comes to "collective need", we abandon the baser senses we've had since the days of our first reading of The Little Red Hen in elementary school. If this is how you've summarized my statements, you've not been paying attention. I appreciate your honesty as I assess how best to spend my time.

The funny thing is that they call themselves Christians. Whose "entitlements" would Jesus cut off, I wonder?

Who's money would Jesus steal to distribute to someone else? Zero. Did Jesus believe in giving to the capable or was it not the severely crippled, diseased, and destitute that Jesus demanded of our compassion? We have something quite different today Helmling. Instead of Jesus' day when the question was; "what can I do for the poor", the question is now; "what will YOU do for the poor?" It is much easier to spend someone else's money and there is nothing compassionate about having money taken from you. If you knew anything at all about Christianity it is about the acts of reverence, the giving out of love. Taxation is not giving, it's taking. Conservatives give more to charity statistically than liberals because of a stark difference in mindset. Those cigar-chomping rich Christians are donating more to missions work, charity, and the poor in one year than many have done for the poor in their entire lifetime by picketing for more wealth re-distribution.

So in pondering the possibility of collapse, I found myself thinking spiritually. Not being a Christian, though, I drifted toward the Buddhist ascription to seek out the middle way. I hope there is such a thing. I hope there's a way for us to find a way to have our government reflect our compassion--a part of human nature you don't seem to give a lot of credit--while society still challenges our competitive instincts. That's what I hope for...and you?

What you're hoping for is hopelessly naive and waits for another crisis or philosophy or religion or feeble argument to exploit for your personal, partisan sensitivities. It is neither rooted in reality, compassion, nor spirituality as it is as morally bankrupt as the US is fiscally bankrupt. If it was a worthwhile compassion, it'd see more than one year into the future wellbeing.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The solution to our environmental mess starts with electricity. The first and most important part is to establish enough electrical generation to drive an electrical driven economy. This starts with using Solar Power, Wind Power, Nuclear Power, Thermal Power and Hydro Power. No Coal, Gas or Oil generation, nothing that revolves around combustion with very few exceptions.

And all those noncombusting solutions cost far more than coal or oil. That still means higher prices for everything. Wouldn't developing a new source be advisable before cutting off current technology? The devil is in the details. Those newer technologies aren't available to everyone yet. It will take decades of developing the energy source, and providing outlets to get that new energy to the average Joe. It took 50 years for the coal industry to develop, and 40 years to get gasoline at a local gas station. The electric cars are getting electricity generated at coal powered plants, so how is this any better? Most political hacks don't know the insides of technologies anyway, which is why those idiots promise so much and never deliver anything except hot air.