1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Nov '15 19:381 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It depends what you mean by 'dire'.

    [b]You DO advocate redistribution of trillions of dollars to "fix" this don't you?

    Yes. But reducing the subsidies on coal and other fossil fuels is hardly 'the end of the world'.[/b]
    Is trillions of dollars chump change to you?
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Nov '15 19:40
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This "redistribution" would be in the form of making carbon emitters pay for the damage they are doing or reduce the actions they are doing which are causing the damage. Making those who are imposing negative economic externalities pay for them is merely generating economic efficiency and stopping them from getting excess profit by forcing the costs of their activities on unwilling others.
    Translation: Energy becomes more expensive for consumers. Energy companies simply pass the buck.

    All who will be hurt will be Middle class and upper middle class citizens. The poor will be reimbersed by the Fed monopoly money and the rich simply won't give a damn cuz it's chimp change to them.

    As Marx once stated, the middle class must be destroyed.

    In the interim, we will be bombarded by propaganda that what these taxes are doing is helping to fight climate change.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39626
    30 Nov '15 19:491 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Translation: Energy becomes more expensive for consumers. Energy companies simply pass the buck.

    All who will be hurt will be Middle class and upper middle class citizens. The poor will be reimbersed by the Fed monopoly money and the rich simply won't give a damn cuz it's chimp change to them.

    As Marx once stated, the middle class must be destroyed. ...[text shortened]... l be bombarded by propaganda that what these taxes are doing is helping to fight climate change.
    More ranting and raving. Clearly taxes and/or regulations that force those causing the damage to either pay for it or fix it are in line with any notion of economic efficiency. Allowing businesses and individuals to force these costs onto others is just another gift to the wealthiest and most powerful.

    What do you propose to reduce the level of carbon emissions? Waiting for Jesus to show up and fix the problem?

    EDIT: Most Americans seem to be climate change "fanatics" by your definition:

    Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world/americas/us-climate-change-republicans-democrats.html?_r=0%3C/p%3E
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Nov '15 19:56
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    More ranting and raving. Clearly taxes and/or regulations that force those causing the damage to either pay for it or fix it are in line with any notion of economic efficiency. Allowing businesses and individuals to force these costs onto others is just another gift to the wealthiest and most powerful.

    What do you propose to reduce the level of carbon emissions? Waiting for Jesus to show up and fix the problem?
    More ranting a raving? Obama just got done imposing the largest tax increase on the middle class in US history via Obamacare. Now he wants to finish them off with trying to heat and cool their homes and driving around.

    We are tired of being lied to.

    As for fixing the carbon problem, the article I cited stated they were trying to produce ways to decrease CO2 levels, but that the environmentalist movement was only focused on killing fossil fuels. That is their primary objective. I really believe once they accomplish their economic plans, they will be done. I don't think they really care about CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions is just a tool for them to accomplish their objectives.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39626
    30 Nov '15 20:021 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    More ranting a raving? Obama just got done imposing the largest tax increase on the middle class in US history via Obamacare. Now he wants to finish them off with trying to heat and cool their homes and driving around.

    We are tired of being lied to.

    As for fixing the carbon problem, the article I cited stated they were trying to produce ways to decrea ...[text shortened]... care about CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions is just a tool for them to accomplish their objectives.
    These silly lies get more tiresome the more you repeat them.http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/ The effect of the various taxes on the average American is virtually zero.http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes/

    The rest is your usual nonsense.
  6. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    30 Nov '15 20:55
    Originally posted by whodey
    It seems to me that pretty much everyone believes that the world is coming Which scenario to you fall under?

    1. Secular Humanist. Man is destroying the world via climate change. Our collective salvation depends upon governments around the world joining forces to take draconian measures to save us all.

    2. Islam. Prophesy speaks of an Islamic Calip ...[text shortened]... we would destroy ourselves.

    Did I leave any out? Does this account for pretty much everyone?
    4. a CME or EMP event producing widespread human devastation or

    5. A collision with an asteroid, wiping out the planet and all life on it.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Nov '15 21:04
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is trillions of dollars chump change to you?
    No, and nothing I said should have given you that impression. Oh yes, I forgot your propensity for deliberately misrepresenting everything you read.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Nov '15 23:074 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    These silly lies get more tiresome the more you repeat them.http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/ The effect of the various taxes on the average American is virtually zero.http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes/

    The rest is your usual nonsense.
    If you like your partisan shill web sites you can keep your partisan shill websites.

    All I know is that my premiums have really gone up and for less coverage. Obama said the opposite would happen. He also told me I could keep my old coverage.

    Pretty much everyone I know says the same.

    Liars gonna lie and they stick together apparently. When will you people learn that your credibility is shot to hell?
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    30 Nov '15 23:09
    Originally posted by normbenign
    4. a CME or EMP event producing widespread human devastation or

    5. A collision with an asteroid, wiping out the planet and all life on it.
    Start your own religion! 😠

    Just kidding.

    Don't let your government officials see your theory. They will some how take it and turn it into a tax.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39626
    01 Dec '15 02:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    If you like your partisan shill web sites you can keep your partisan shill websites.

    All I know is that my premiums have really gone up and for less coverage. Obama said the opposite would happen. He also told me I could keep my old coverage.

    Pretty much everyone I know says the same.

    Liars gonna lie and they stick together apparently. When will you people learn that your credibility is shot to hell?
    I think you are a liar and I don't believe personal anecdotes from a liar. Relatively few people use the individual market and of those only a small minority got higher premiums and less coverage i.e. those with above average incomes and no coverage from their employer. The claim that that happened to "pretty much everyone I know" is so statistically unlikely that it is almost certainly a blatant falsehood. Of course, it has nothing to do with your original claim either but ranters gonna rant and ravers gonna rave.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    01 Dec '15 04:14
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I think you are a liar and I don't believe personal anecdotes from a liar. Relatively few people use the individual market and of those only a small minority got higher premiums and less coverage i.e. those with above average incomes and no coverage from their employer. The claim that that happened to "pretty much everyone I know" is so statistically unl ...[text shortened]... has nothing to do with your original claim either but ranters gonna rant and ravers gonna rave.
    The “Affordable” Care Act may be looking for a new name in the near future. As Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are reporting, the next round of health care premium cost adjustments are coming down the pike, and you’ll never guess where things are heading. Okay… you probably guessed already.


    The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Obamacare rates are about to shoot up, in some cases as much as 40%. The rate increases requested by insurance carriers vary state by state, but the overall picture is bad.

    “In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016,” the Journal reports. “The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.”

    The Washington Examiner reported today that in Oregon the primary insurance carrier is facing costs (payouts) exceeding premiums (income) by just over 60%. “Moda Health, which serves roughly half of (Oregon’s) individual market, is aiming to raise rates by an average of 25.6 percent. As Jed Graham of Investor’s Business Daily noted, Moda’s costs for 2014 – the first year of Obamacare’s exchanges — exceeded its premiums by 61.5 percent.”

    Not all of the states are looking at rate increases in that range. Some of them are “only” going to be asking for increases in the ten percent range. But the direction is still consistent, and it isn’t down. You may recall that during the entire debate in the run up to the passage of Obamacare we were assured that one of the overarching purposes of the legislation was to halt the skyrocketing cost of health insurance, as well as making sure that more people could afford it. We were told this tale by Nancy Pelosi, though she later seemed to have forgotten saying it. Later, the message was fine tuned a bit and we were told that costs would not rise as quickly. On can only imagine what health insurance would cost in New Mexico without this legislation since they’re looking at a more than fifty percent jump in a single year.

    So what’s causing this? The analysts who are already weighing in have concluded that the young and healthy are not signing up. This means that most of the new customers coming into the market are older and sicker and costing the insurance companies more money than the federal government planned to pay them through executive fiat and regulation of a free market system. Who could have possible predicted that, aside from nearly every fiscal conservative writing about it for years on end? It’s a mystery, I tell you.

    One of our colleagues at Red State seems to believe that the fix was in long before the ink was dry on this deal.


    So insurers accomplish the regulatory capture of our caring and compassionate government. The Unaffordable Care Act allows them to petition for ridiculous rate hikes and thereby make obscene and unjustifiable profits at taxpayer expense. The people getting paid by the insurers watch all of this with a gimlet eye. They see the fat wallets and want their cash-stuffed envelope as well. Companies like Air Methods then charge the insurers ridiculous rates in line with the ridiculous rates that the insurers will not pay. At that point, these costs get passed to the insured patient who can’t afford them. This is how the Unaffordable Care Act helps make healthcare that much more unaffordable.

    Keep in mind that none of this happens in a vacuum. It’s not just those who are signed up through the Obamacare exchanges who will be seeing higher costs. (Assuming that the taxpayer funded subsidies don’t cover the spread, that is.) Even if you have your own insurance or are getting a policy through your employer, the costs are going up. So I guess everything worked out okay in the end, right? We should elect a whole new pack of Democrats to bring more comprehensive reform to our nation’s pressing concerns.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12764
    01 Dec '15 05:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I was under the impression the world was already here. And it seems 100% certain EVERYONE believes the world is coming. But what is it coming TO?

    I think it's 50/50 if humanity is smart enough to correct its own mistakes as far as climate goes.

    One BIG problem is, in the USA at least, the majority of the republican party members in congress poo poo' ...[text shortened]... out the window as well, due to people just trying to survive, thrust back into the 15th century.
    You are delusional just like the rest of the left-wing nutjubs. 😏
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12764
    01 Dec '15 05:22
    Originally posted by whodey
    More ranting a raving? Obama just got done imposing the largest tax increase on the middle class in US history via Obamacare. Now he wants to finish them off with trying to heat and cool their homes and driving around.

    We are tired of being lied to.

    As for fixing the carbon problem, the article I cited stated they were trying to produce ways to decrea ...[text shortened]... care about CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions is just a tool for them to accomplish their objectives.
    You got it. It is deception by the left-wing nutjobs. 😏
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Dec '15 06:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    The “Affordable” Care Act may be looking for a new name in the near future. As Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are reporting, the next round of health care premium cost adjustments are coming down the pike, and you’ll never guess where things are heading. Okay… you probably guessed already.
    So, when caught lying about your own premiums you change the argument to 'but they are going up in the near future, or so Fox News assures me!'.
    Hilarious.
  15. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    01 Dec '15 09:231 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Translation: Energy becomes more expensive for consumers. Energy companies simply pass the buck.

    All who will be hurt will be Middle class and upper middle class citizens. The poor will be reimbersed by the Fed monopoly money and the rich simply won't give a damn cuz it's chimp change to them.

    As Marx once stated, the middle class must be destroyed. ...[text shortened]... l be bombarded by propaganda that what these taxes are doing is helping to fight climate change.
    Whodey: "As Marx once stated, the middle class must be destroyed." I thought I would investigate. We must keep up with Whodey's thinking.

    After the revolution alike in Marx’s philosophical world-concept and in his views on the material conditions of social production, he shook himself free of the last vestiges of Liberalism.

    “The Poverty of Philosophy,” from the economic aspect, and “The Communist Manifesto,” from the political aspect herald the final liberation of Socialism from the last lower middle-class swaddling clothes.

    The founders of scientific Socialism had not had as yet the experience of a revolution, but by the path of theoretical analysis they had even then succeeded in establishing the fact that, in the progress of the revolutionary movement, the lower middle-class can display itself only as a reactionary and Utopian factor.

    This lower middle-class — as “The Communist Manifesto” proclaims — “stands half-way between the proletariat and the capitalist class. Being a necessary complement of capitalist society, this class is constantly being reborn.” Composed of extremely mixed elements of the pre-capitalist epoch — the so-called “toiling intelligentsia,” the lackeys of the capitalist class — this class was to be found, in France, in Switzerland, and to a certain extent in Germany, at the advanced posts of the revolution of 1848. According to “The Communist Manifesto,“ the Communists were to support the various party groupings of these elements, while the latter were in opposition, understanding clearly, however, that if the representatives of the lower middle-class were really revolutionary in sentiment, it was only when faced with their immediate descent into the ranks of the proletariat.

    These hopes of the lower middle-class, little sanguine though they were, nevertheless were completely shattered. The revolution of 1848 clearly revealed the political bankruptcy of the revolutionary section of the bourgeoisie. That revolution laid bare not only their weakness, but also how dangerous they were to the work of the revolution. During the French revolution of that year, the proletariat was crushed, not by the capitalists, but by this very lower middle-class. “The small shopkeeper,” wrote Marx in “The Class Struggle in France,” “rose up and moved against the barricades, in order to restore the movement from the street into his shop. And when the barricades had been destroyed, when the workmen had been defeated, when the shopkeepers, drunk with victory, turned back to their shops, they found their entry barred by the saviours of property, the official agents of financial capital, who met them with stern demands: ‘The bills have become overdue! Pay up, gentlemen! Pay for your premises, pay four your goods.’ The poor little shop was ruined, the poor shopkeeper was undone!”

    The lower middle-class is not fit to wield power, and a long government by it is unthinkable. This, first and foremost, for economic reasons: the small shopkeeper is the debtor of the great capitalist, and must remain in dependence on him as long as there exists the system of credit — which cannot be destroyed while the domination of private property continues.

    The Imperialist era of capitalist production has fully justified this view of Marx’s. If the democratisation of capital by means of joint stock companies — the wild dream of the distorters of Marxism — were an economic possibility, even then the majority of the lower middle-class shareholders would be powerless to govern society.

    The roots of the dilemma created by Imperialism are to be found in the economic relations on which Imperialism is based. There are only two classes capable of governing: the class of great capitalists, and the proletariat.

    Every compromise with the upper bourgeoisie is treachery to the proletarian revolution. Every compromise with the lower middle-class after the victory of the revolution would mean the restoration of the supremacy of the upper bourgeoisie — the restoration of capitalist rule.

    The experience of the revolution of 1848 completely confirmed Marx in his conviction that the revolution can blazon on its banner these watchwords only: the complete overthrow of all sections of the capitalist class, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.


    From Bela Kun in Pravda, 1918

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/kun-bela/1918/05/04.htm
Back to Top