Another sad article on our ocean's health...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love it when people use Germany as a good example. They have a tax rate near the top in the Europe and an unemployment rate double that of the U.S. Yeah... lets follow their examples.

What we are talking about is a government run socialist state.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13001877#post13001877 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Back to the debate ;)




The free market typically causes a company to do what it thinks is best for it's bottom line. No more, no less. Not entirely unreasonable, but it does have it's drawbacks. In the case of GE dumping PCB's, it was the cost effective thing for them to do as a company looking out for it's bottom line in a free market. No one made them do it, it was just the cheapest way out which was best for their bottom line. Now several decades later we are still paying the price of that pollution in our waters :(

"Minimal" govermnet intervention... ie; the EPA will make sure this doesn't happen again. The free market with a few guidelines is what is going to fix this.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13001915#post13001915 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kannin
"Minimal" govermnet intervention... ie; the EPA will make sure this doesn't happen again. The free market with a few guidelines is what is going to fix this.

a few shots of patron will fix this :confused:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13001851#post13001851 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kannin
You seem like an intelligent individual... so I was shocked when you made these statements. A gas guzzler tax which is already imposed at the time of purchase on high performance sports cars such as Ferarris and other cars that do not attempt to meet cafe standards... is much different than local, state and federal gas taxes assessed at the pump. If we give the 537 lawyers that run this country enough rope... they will undoubtedly start to impose other such taxes in the name of AGW on those of us that they feel, use too much.

If you think that the government cannot or does not tax us on our utility bills... look at your cell phone monthly statement. They can and do!

We have already said... "What's it hurt to give in a little?" and it is not a stretch for them to start assessing penalties for over usage. They have already outlawed incadescent light bulbs. All we are left with is light bulbs that have mercury in them. Have you seen the hazmat requirements for cleaning up a broken one. Who's to say they won't outlaw barbequeing or limit the amount of beef we can use. They have already taken our tax dollars and created a false market for corn so large... that it is creating a shortage in other crops and price increases on almost every food we buy.

If you are buying a Ferrari, Humvee, etc... Im just going to use the logic that paying that extra tax isnt going to be your biggest concern or expense with that vehicle. If you can afford it in the first place, I doubt it is a major concern. Not to mention, there is something like $100,000 in tax deductions that you can take with a Hummer... compared to the $5000 if you buy an electric. Talk about 'stacking the deck'...lol.

Of note, several bulb makers opted on their own to stop making filament bulbs on their own before any laws were imposed. You are right, there are some taxes on electricity, but they are minimal. Electricity is to easy for someone to make on their own... you start jacking up the rate too much, and people will simply start generating their own electricity more. As it is, it still makes sense considering the tax credits you get, and how cheap some solar/wins systems are getting. Im waiting on those vertical windmills to hit mainstream myself. But since ANYONE can make electricity, its not like coal or oil where few can produce it.

CF bulbs dont break too easily, and when they do, its still less exposure than say... eating a meal of seafood. Its not like you are inhaling them or something. Several brands now use 'low Mercury' setups which actually perform better than previous ones (better phosphors), like the ALTO brands. Honestly, Im not too worried about mercury... I think its one that we all cringe a bit too much when we hear it. Heck, automobile exhaust contains mercury, so lets all start freaking out! Lol. The thing is, in low levels, mercury does nothing to us. If your job is to dispose of fluorescent lamps, well, then maybe its worth taking the time and extra steps to minimize your exposure. There is more danger from Aluminum in your day to day life than Mercury.

The woman had a hair sample tested recently, and they found no mercury... even though she eats sushi with me every week. They did find Aluminum and Uranium however. Go figure. Aluminum is thought to be the cause behind several 'old age' brain problems, like Parkinsons. Im high risk myself, so I use deoderants that dont use Aluminum (most do). Teflon fry pans are also a problem here.

Kannin, for all the problems that you see in the numbers with Germany, France, UK, etc; when you look at their overall performance, its better than ours. They may have a 35 hour work week, and up to 45 vacation days a year, but they still have a higher productivity. France, another example of high taxes, as well as other countries like the UK have more of the 'American Dream' now than the US does. See, even though they have higher taxes, they also get healthcare, and usually free education as well. With this additional security, it is actually easier for a family/individual to move up in economic class than here in the US. Sure, their taxes are higher, but they also have less to worry about. How much do you save up for in case you have a surgery that your insurance wont cover, or wont cover enough? How much do employers need to pay for your insurance that could otherwise make them more competitive by going back to the company or your wages? Sometimes, social systems provide more freedom than leaving them private. Sure, a doctor in the UK might not make as much as here... but thats only part of it. They also dont have to carry expensive malpractice insurance, and they often have no student loans to pay off. So in the end, they end up making more. A severe illness in a family can easily deplete a family's savings in this country (until HR 676 goes through perhaps), even with good insurance. Since having a socialized system for health care covers everyone (and everyone needs it) for less money in other countries (1/4 the cost or less) than we pay per capita right now... why not? If its the private company telling you that they deny your benefits, or the government, who cares? The private insurance companies tell you that if you want insurance, you are still going to cover the cost of those who dont pay their bills/illegals/no insurance, and even more for their profit margin... so the argument that 'you shouldnt have to pay for people who cant afford it themselves' also doesnt work. If it means slightly higher taxes on your paycheck vs. paying $300 a month for insurance... is there a huge difference?
 
All we are left with is light bulbs that have mercury in them. Have you seen the hazmat requirements for cleaning up a broken one.
Talk about using scare tactics to push an agenda... All fluorescent bulbs contain mercury and always have. That includes the old style T12s and the T5s that are so popular in the hobby. Those generally have 1-10 times as much mercury as an average CF, yet no one has ever been concerned about their use. I think all of us know several people who have broken them without harm and without hazmat response. The EPA's recommended procedure for dealing with a broken CF is to open windows and let the room air out for 30 minutes, then sweep up the big pieces of debris and use tape to remove the rest. There's no need to pay a contractor $2k or get hazmat involved. To give you an idea of the amount of mercury we're talking about, the average CF contains about 4 mg of mercury. A typical dental filling has 400-500 mg, and the average American has 8 of them. If you're average, you walk around everyday with about 800 times the amount of mercury in your mouth than you could get from a broken CF.

Compare the lifetime mercury pollution of a CF that's disposed of improperly to the amount of mercury pollution from an incandescent for that same period. Where coal is the power source (about half of the US), you end up producing a lot more mercury to run the incandescent (DoE estimates 10 mg) than what is contained in the CF plus the mercury released by the power production to run it (6.4 mg). If you recycle the bulbs, there's really no comparison- 2.4 mg to 10 mg. Home Depot, Ace Hardware, IKEA, and lots of other places are now taking the used bulbs for recycling and lots of towns hold HHW collection days a few times a year.
 
There is not $100,000 tax deductions for Hummers! I call Bulls hit

You are missing my points. Today... they have gas guzzler taxes on a few expensive cars but, if we continue down this road of trying to over compensate for this overblown crisis (while almost 2 billion people don't have to follow any rules in China and India) they will be taxing alot more normal cars. And they will be raising taxes on utility bills in the name of AGW. They will do alot of things in the name of AGW.

They do not have a better standard of living in Europe! And, their healthcare is not 1/4 the cost. I can get needed surgery TODAY here... by a well paid, highly qualified surgeon. That won't happen in Europe or Canada or any other socialized country. There are two problems with our system... The first one is the lawyers and the second one is the Cadillac health plans started by the unions. We use health insurance for a cold or a bruise and that drives the cost up. If we used our car insurance for oil changes and tuneups... it would cost alot more than $100 bucks a month. Do you really want to put healthcare and the money in the hands of the government? You want to see how much something can really cost??? Just make it free! Rationing of healthcare is a reality in those socialized countries. Many people come here when they need care. If you make it less profitable to try to attain profitability... people will stop trying. Or they will leave. Have you noticed that most very successful people leave the UK and get citizenship here? That is because their highest marginal tax rate is nearly 90%. So instead of charging them 40% and getting good tax revenue... they chase all of it away.

There's no magic to numbers. When they raise taxes on the "rich & the "evil corporations" to pay for all of these ideas... They will either cut payroll or raise prices. Either way, it's you and me paying for it. When and if a socialist gets into office and starts raising taxes like taking capital gains from 15% to 28% like he already said he would do... You watch the sell off. You watch the hundreds of undercapitalized companies go out of business... when the stock market takes a 25% drop.

Mark my words... If you get what you want... you'll regret it in twenty years. But, it'll be too late.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13005745#post13005745 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kannin
When and if a socialist gets into office and starts raising taxes like taking capital gains from 15% to 28% like he already said he would do... You watch the sell off. You watch the hundreds of undercapitalized companies go out of business... when the stock market takes a 25% drop.

I was with you up until here, we had higher taxes under Clinton and the market was at it's highest point ever. Companies weren't undercapitalized, and they didn't go out of business because of it.

Know what else we had under Clinton? A balanced federal budget. Dividends of peace. Prosperity. Near full employment. Not bad for a "socialist" eh? Of course much of that was due to a republican congress at the time, but the fact is that we haven't seen that kind of leadership from either party in 8 years.

My apologies for injecting politics into a reef debate.
 
"Minimal" govermnet intervention... ie; the EPA will make sure this doesn't happen again. The free market with a few guidelines is what is going to fix this.
It's ok for the government to regulate PCBs, but not CO2?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12898650#post12898650 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aslavatortin
Like I said, parrot talking points. Do you have ANY IDEA what you are talking about? So ridiculously many scientists disagree with the preposterous notion that man has ANYTHING to do with climate change! I'm not going to waste time looking for links to educate you, but here's a quick one: 31,000 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Myth .

How in the name of Al Gore can man be responsible for something that has been going on looooooong before man came into existence?

I agree with you, it has been going on long before man, however I do believe that humans may be speeding up the process!
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13005745#post13005745 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kannin
There is not $100,000 tax deductions for Hummers! I call Bulls hit

You are missing my points. Today... they have gas guzzler taxes on a few expensive cars but, if we continue down this road of trying to over compensate for this overblown crisis (while almost 2 billion people don't have to follow any rules in China and India) they will be taxing alot more normal cars. And they will be raising taxes on utility bills in the name of AGW. They will do alot of things in the name of AGW.

They do not have a better standard of living in Europe! And, their healthcare is not 1/4 the cost. I can get needed surgery TODAY here... by a well paid, highly qualified surgeon. That won't happen in Europe or Canada or any other socialized country. There are two problems with our system... The first one is the lawyers and the second one is the Cadillac health plans started by the unions. We use health insurance for a cold or a bruise and that drives the cost up. If we used our car insurance for oil changes and tuneups... it would cost alot more than $100 bucks a month. Do you really want to put healthcare and the money in the hands of the government? You want to see how much something can really cost??? Just make it free! Rationing of healthcare is a reality in those socialized countries. Many people come here when they need care. If you make it less profitable to try to attain profitability... people will stop trying. Or they will leave. Have you noticed that most very successful people leave the UK and get citizenship here? That is because their highest marginal tax rate is nearly 90%. So instead of charging them 40% and getting good tax revenue... they chase all of it away.

There's no magic to numbers. When they raise taxes on the "rich & the "evil corporations" to pay for all of these ideas... They will either cut payroll or raise prices. Either way, it's you and me paying for it. When and if a socialist gets into office and starts raising taxes like taking capital gains from 15% to 28% like he already said he would do... You watch the sell off. You watch the hundreds of undercapitalized companies go out of business... when the stock market takes a 25% drop.

Mark my words... If you get what you want... you'll regret it in twenty years. But, it'll be too late.

1. Yes, there are about $100,000 in tax credits for buying a Hummer. Im not saying one person qualifies for all of them at once, but they are there. For instance: There is a chinese restaurant near me that makes alot of money (The owner is a millionaire now), and a few years ago, you know what he picked up as his delivery vehicle fleet? Hummer H2's. Now, I used to date his daughter back in high-school, so he knows me, and I asked him, "how can that be economical?". His response was that as a business owner, he gets more tax credits for using one of those than if he were to buy Honda Civics.

2. Have you been to Europe? Yes, it is easier to move up economic class in Europe. That is something many US publications have documented over recent years. CNN, New York Times, etc...
http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog...ealth-make-you-upper-class-facts-about-class/
"I was terribly surprised to find that in a study involving households in 5 developed nations followed through 4 generations: the United Kingdom, United States, France, Canada and Denmark â€" the U.S. scored almost the lowest in terms of class mobility. Though the U.K. had the lowest standing, its scores weren’t that far off from the U.S. This just means that it was easier to get out of poverty in France, Canada and Denmark than it was in the U.S. and the U.K."
^^^ and, recently, the UK's 'class mobility' rating has gone up according to CNN, also higher than the US's.

3. As for your health care beliefs, you are far off. You can not get surgery TODAY unless your provider gives approval first, and this may or may not happen, pending an investigation. Recently I was denied for turbinate reduction surgery... because it was not seen as 'needed' for my 'ability to live', even though living with rhinitis is a total drag. So I could wait a little and use my next insurance, but how much do you want to bet that it will be deemed a 'pre-existing condition'?

Unlike your general scoffing, and disbelief that isnt backed by any fact, I can prove what I say is true:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

Also note that their life expectancy and health care quality rankings are higher than ours. Ours is being beat by Cuba currently since we rank #37 by the WHO, France and Canada both in the top 10.

I see that you have bought into the propaganda that Nixon started though (and Reagan perpetuated)... that a 'private system is more competitive and provides better care.' BS. On the contrary, using health insurance for minor problems is a good thing. Those small visits are a good thing, and are a minimal cost. They provide a means for your doctor to give you a small 'check up', as many dont go in for a yearly physical even. This can be used to prevent many problems before they get serious, and then cost alot of money in the ER. Statements like these are what they WANT you to believe: "Do you really want to put healthcare and the money in the hands of the government? You want to see how much something can really cost??? Just make it free!"

^^^ Uh, yeah, thats how it is in Canada, UK, France, etc. I hear this argument all the time... 'do you want a government employee doing heart surgery?' with the idea that you wouldnt want a city works or garbage man working on your heart...lol. Keep in mind that the US military has a socialized medical system that is perhaps the finest around, and that government employees also consist of NSA, CIA, FBI, Military, and a slew of other people in positions that are very good at what they do. Garbage men... yeah, nice try, lol. Its FREE in those other countries. No, there are not problems with 'getting in' or 'quality of care' (what, you think people just go in for the hell of it?), and the higher level of access is actually better for prevention than ER visits later on. What, you think private companies dont ration more in the name of their profitability? The numbers that other nations are showing is that socialized medicine is actually lowering its cost. As it is, we pay alot for it... some would argue enough exists in the current budget to cover it by simply cutting out the private organizations. Last year, the US spent about 700 billion on 'Health and Human Services'. A good deal of that is because the people who need health care the most cant pay for it. Think about it... you come down with an illness and lose your job... where does your healthcare come from? When you get old? When you are disabled? When you are on a limited income and your employer cant afford to give it to you? Gee, it seems like the only people that a private system really helps are the ones who dont really need it... middle-upper income full time workers. What about the rest? The speculation is that HR 676 could be paid for with the current budget... that making it more available by covering EVERYONE rather than waiting until something is more serious would save the tax payer in the end. If someone wants even better health care, just to feel better than everyone else, there is still a market for supplimental insurance in the UK and other countries that allows for this. But the idea that everyone should have access at least, and not have it be a financial burden, is the basis of these other systems.

Do some research before you post your opinions which are clearly based on propaganda.

Back on topic: If you follow the money trail with many of the 'global warming scoffers', you will find propaganda was the main idea as well. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions, were funded billions of dollars by companies like Exxon, Chevron, etc.; Sort of a 'joint venture startup' if you will, to skew public opinion. Also note that this POV is pretty much only in the US, and every other country in the world is on the other side of the fence already. Hmmm... connect the dots anyone? So, some people in the US dont believe global warming because they read it on some website or something (something that most likely came from oil company spending), and only in the US is there this 'global warming scoffing' going on... MAYBE THEY ARE RELATED! Similar marketing has been done to suggest that a Hummer is more 'environmental' than a Prius... which several research institutions decided to follow up on and found it was pure marketing hype. The debate is that the battery in the Prius, NiMH for the current generation, contains nickel, a substance that requires some very nasty mining. Truth is, the frame of the Hummer contains about 3x the nickel (used for coating Stainless Steel) than a Prius battery...lol. And future versions will have lithium ion and lithium polymer, or Li-Fiber batteries (oh, no, were going to run out of lithium then!). The good news is that Exxon, Texaco, and Chevron have all pulled funding from CEI, as well as other groups.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13006634#post13006634 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 1BADREEF
I agree with you, it has been going on long before man, however I do believe that humans may be speeding up the process!

Also be sure to see if any one of those scientists has ever published a paper on climate, environment, etc. That recent Berkeley study couldnt find papers from them. They did find that several of these 'scientists' were not even in the field, and many were taking money (in the form of research funding, of course), to say those things. The 'scientists' included some without degrees even, and many others from fields not even related. Berkeley has yet to find an actual paper produced by one of them... yet thousands that claim otherwise.

"Unfortunately, there are a number of soâ€"œcalled “organizations,” a lot of their funding can be traced back to fossil fuel corporations. They’re often not much more than a p.o. box and an individual or two who are behind them. They have been paid money to manufacture false controversy. They’ve been doing that for years. That has been a particularly profound influence here in the United States. That’ll probably continue to go on for some time.

I’m pleased, and many of us are pleased that Exxonâ€"œMobil has announced that they are no longer going to provide funding for many of these organizations that they were providing to manufacture this false controversy. This was actually detailed in an extensive report by the Union of Concerned Scientists that was issued about a month ago, where they detailed all of the unfortunate ways that Exxonâ€"œMobil had been funding to cloud the public understanding of the science. Well, it looks like they’re backing away from that now. But I don’t think that that means that we’re not going to see some efforts of that sort again, even with this next IPCC report. So we shouldn’t be surprised that there will be some talking heads out there, probably most of them financed by industry, to try to confuse the public’s understanding of the report, to try to raise false criticisms of the conclusions that have been drawn. We’re going to see some of that. There’s no question. So it’s important for us to keep in mind that we’re probably seeing the last gasps of this sort of disinformation effort that is probably in its tail end now that the science has become ever more strong as time has gone on.

Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences at Pennsylvania State University and director of the university’s Earth System Science Center."

Why target the US? It accounts for roughly four percent of the world’s population;
Accounts for approximately 23% of global emissions and 42% of industrialized country emissions;

Well, you have your motivations...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

The irony is that now many companies that funded 'global warming skepticism' are now trying to undo what they have done. They actually see more potential growth in 'green tech' for the economy than by sticking with oil. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry... you've got to dumb it down for me. Is that a nose job that your insurance won't pay for?

Everything you say from here on out is suspect... because the millionaire Chineseguy down the street who's daughter you used to date, told you that he gets more tax breaks on a hummer than a civic... and you turn around and say it is a fact that you can get a $100,000 tax break on a hummer while only $5,000 on an electric car.

Greenbean... you were right about public debate and the falsehoods that can come from it.

Don't tell me to do my research. In Canada... the wait for non life saving surgery is over two months and the wait for some life saving surgeries is 5 weeks. In the UK... doctor's offices close when they have rationed enough care for the month.

You think the government can manage it better. They can't manage social security, they can't manage much of anything. With welfare... another socialist program, 74 cents of every dollar runs the machine. There is nothing efficient about that.

You said, "The speculation is that HR 676 could be paid for with the current budget..." The speculation??? When they attempted to rewrite the SHIPPS bill last year... They wanted to raise taxes by $1 on a pack of cigarettes and $10 on a cigar, and they speculated that this would pay for the bill. They conveniently forgot to calculate that the amount of users that would quit or shop on the black market would create a shortfall but, they new that by that time the program would be in place and they would get the money from somewhere else. This is what they do... and you want to trust them. They are lawyers that look out for their interests... before your's. Did you know that a 1 term senator gets $15,000 a month for the rest of his life. John Edwards, who is worth somewhere in the 1/2 billion range gets $15,000 a month from you and me forever and he did such a bad job that he couldn't even carry his own state in the last presidential election.

You say that healthcare is free in Europe... nothing could be further from the truth. They have a tax rate that is double ours.

My opinions are not based on propaganda. I am a 41 year old man living in the fifth highest taxed state in the nation. I have a wife and two children and my wife and I earn enough money to be clasified as "the rich". We are in the same tax bracket as people like Sarah Jessica Parker, Alec Baldwin and Jennifer Aniston. I use these people as examples because they aspouse their socialist views fully knowing that when taxes get raised... they'll still have close to half, which is still millions and millions but, when the government takes more than half from us... we may have to down size. Our children may have to go without. I believe that the government should should stop taking my money for anything other than what the constitution allows them too and they should stop trying to make us dependant on them. I think they should give us a little credit.

Here are three real life examples;

I worked with a fellow who was very liberal and earned $78,000 in 2007. He was complaing that his eight year old daughter could get lukemia and die because he could not afford medical insurance. I knew him well enough to know that he had not one, but two relatively new cars with sizable payments, a 50 inch plasma and an X-Box 360. This man can easily afford insurance but, chooses not to have it. He wants others to foot the bill. How many others are like this?

I also worked with a man from the U.K., 8 or 9 years ago... who had been here for 14 years and had not paid into the system in Europe for that long, when all of a sudden... his American wife who was pregnant with twins, developed complications. He moved her to England where she could get nearly $140,000 worth of medical care for free. Well, not exactly free... because the good people of England footed the bill. And, when everything was all better... they moved back to the states where it was cheaper to live. Hmmm?

I met a man today... who gave up a kidney for his brother 5 years ago. When I said I heard organ transplants can be kind of expensive... he said it was free. "You see" he said, "My brother is married to a German woman, so they moved back home and then I flew there... had the operation and came home 8 days later. Even my flight was free." I ask you... Free to whom?
How many people will take advantage? how many people will take more than their fair share?

That's why the Robin Hood system doesn't work. There are too many people with their hands out. Too many people that don't want to pay for their own nose job. There are even a bunch of folks out there that believe they shouldn't have to pay for their own abortions.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13005972#post13005972 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BigJay
I was with you up until here, we had higher taxes under Clinton and the market was at it's highest point ever. Companies weren't undercapitalized, and they didn't go out of business because of it.

Know what else we had under Clinton? A balanced federal budget. Dividends of peace. Prosperity. Near full employment. Not bad for a "socialist" eh? Of course much of that was due to a republican congress at the time, but the fact is that we haven't seen that kind of leadership from either party in 8 years.

My apologies for injecting politics into a reef debate.

Bill Clinton inherited a strong economy and enjoyed the ride of the dot com boom which crashed before he left office.

The conservative congress protected us from his and hers socialist agenda.

He also never abruptly raised taxes like Obama has said he will do. Do you think that there would be any taxable money left in the market if and when the capital gains tax is doubled?

Leadership? I used to think you were alright... lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top