NationStates Jolt Archive

Gee, it's almost like there's an election coming up or something...

The shrub will be announcing an intention to reverse years of torpedoing attempts to put a leash on polution. But the kicker is that Al Gore will be giving a speech about the subject. Can you say "politically motivated"?

Link (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604092.ece)

Well there is concern the Repbublicans might loose the house so yes it sounds politically motivated.

I think it's just that scientists have finally reached a unified consensus on global warming and Bush is listening -- no political motivation at all.

that both the Republicans AND the democrats lost.

Leave the government to the green, socialist, and libertarian parties. They'd run it best.

Leave the government to the green, socialist, and libertarian parties. They'd run it best.

Yes, they'd run it extremely well...into the ground. Well, maybe not the libertarians, but definitely the socialists and the Greens. We all know what a mess Europe is due to their politics.

that both the Republicans AND the democrats lost.

Leave the government to the green, socialist, and libertarian parties. They'd run it best.

Not really. The names would change but the corruption would be the same.

As long as he dosen't do any permanent damage, like get the Kyoto treaty ratified, I suppose it won't matter much.

As long as he dosen't do any permanent damage, like get the Kyoto treaty ratified, I suppose it won't matter much.

That's the point though. And, by the way how would Kyoto "damage" anything?

That's the point though. And, by the way how would Kyoto "damage" anything?

It doesn't.

I wonder how he plans on defending his past 6 years of doing absolutely nothing about Climate Change. Well... I mean, besides the tactic of completely avoiding that question.

I think it's just that scientists have finally reached a unified consensus on global warming and Bush is listening -- no political motivation at all.

Scientist reached a consensus years ago...This move is completely motivated by election year politics.

Scientist reached a consensus years ago...This move is completely motivated by election year politics.

And besides, I don't think a politician is capable of doing something without political motivations.

That's the point though. And, by the way how would Kyoto "damage" anything?

As long as we agree that window dressing, eyewash, or whatever you want call a false display of effort to make voters think Republicans are green is harmless, fine.

The problem with Kyoto is that it only attacks the periphery of CO2 emissions and then, only in developed nations. The treaty is a lot of show, with very little benefit, but great potential to harm productive economies.

But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

I wouldn't mind. Bush is electioneering, and that's what a politician is supposed to do. I would support this move though.

Flip-flopper.

You guys all know that he can't run again, right? :p

HE doesn't have to deal with 6 years of inaction, the 08 candidates do. This just makes the party platform work a little smoother. Besides, everything done by politicians is politically motivated. What the fuck do you expect them to do? It isn't even a question whether or not it is. The fact is that another administration can't survive on pretending the problem doesn't exist so he's giving the party a head start. There is nothing wrong or even suspect about that.

You guys all know that he can't run again, right? :p

HE doesn't have to deal with 6 years of inaction, the 08 candidates do. This just makes the party platform work a little smoother. Besides, everything done by politicians is politically motivated. What the fuck do you expect them to do? It isn't even a question whether or not it is. The fact is that another administration can't survive on pretending the problem doesn't exist so he's giving the party a head start. There is nothing wrong or even suspect about that.

It just sucks but you're right. He can't be re-elected and it is no surprise that he would do this to set the tone for a future candidate. But the fact that he wouldn't respond to reason and scientific fact but seems to respond solely to political motivation --- um, sucks.

It just sucks but you're right. He can't be re-elected and it is no surprise that he would do this to set the tone for a future candidate. But the fact that he wouldn't respond to reason and scientific fact but seems to respond solely to political motivation --- um, sucks.

True, it does suck but it's still understandable. All politicians are subject to the opinions of their supporters. In this case, both corporate influence AND public opinion trumped scientific fact. He couldn't very well embrace a Green platform when running against the likes of Gore and Kerry... The people in 08 have no choice. They'd be creamed if they don't; especially considering the way oil is going and the build up of environmentalism in mainstream relevance.

True, it does suck but it's still understandable. All politicians are subject to the opinions of their supporters. In this case, both corporate influence AND public opinion trumped scientific fact. He couldn't very well embrace a Green platform when running against the likes of Gore and Kerry... The people in 08 have no choice.

He could have without seeming as outrageous as Gore and Kerry seemed as there was no third party for the masses to turn to but... yeah... I agree for the most part. Knowing of course, that his history of environmental mishaps was one of the reasons I didn't vote for Bush.

Scientist reached a quorum years ago...This move is completely motivated by election year politics.

Edited for reality. Consensus implies all agreeing, which is most certainly not the case. But, it doesn't matter I guess because this is all politics and neither side acknowledges reality.

Wikiality. That's the word I was looking for.

I think it's just that scientists have finally reached a unified consensus on global warming
happened years ago.

We all know what a mess Europe is due to their politics.
I live in Europe and it's not a mess at all.

As long as he dosen't do any permanent damage, like get the Kyoto treaty ratified, I suppose it won't matter much.
The Kyoto treaty isn't damaging. If anything, it doesn't go far enough. It needs to be imposed on China as well.

happened years ago.

There was insufficient proof that humans were the cause of global warming. In fact, I myself am not ready to accept it as fact until I see some hard evidence.

I live in Europe and it's not a mess at all.

I consider Ireland and Britain to be distinct from mainland Europe. They at least have some common sense and don't run around with their socialist policies like chickens with their heads cut off.

I think it's just that scientists have finally reached a unified consensus on global warming
You forget that there are hundreds of reputable dissenters around the world.

I live in Europe and it's not a mess at all.
It's inching toward socialism. That's the system that the USSR had. It's the system that caused the USSR to collapse. Greens and Socialists are making a mess of Europe.

The Kyoto treaty isn't damaging. If anything, it doesn't go far enough. It needs to be imposed on China as well.
Hey! Look at that! I found something I can agree one with a green-ish/red-ish! The US shouldn't be expected to sign the treaty while China gets a free pass on it. They pollute quite a bit too.

There was insufficient proof that humans were the cause of global warming. In fact, I myself am not ready to accept it as fact until I see some hard evidence.

Based on your other posts, you wouldn't know hard evidence if it pulled its dick out and slapped you with it.

Based on your other posts, you wouldn't know hard evidence if it pulled its dick out and slapped you with it.

Luckily, that has not yet happened to me.

Luckily, that has not yet happened to me.

It has on global warming. See, you just proved my point.:cool:

You forget that there are hundreds of reputable dissenters around the world.
Name them. Don't forget to include the degrees they have, what those degrees are in, where they got their degrees, and any scientific papers they have published on the subject.

I think it's just that scientists have finally reached a unified consensus on global warming and Bush is listening -- no political motivation at all.


Scientists came to this conclusion about 5 years ago. Where have you been? For years the scientific community has told the politicians on both sides the truth they didn't want to hear. Hell, just two months ago Bush said "we need to study it more to make a decision." Are you telling me that there's been a monumental advance in the past two months that hasn't happened overt tthe past 10 years. Stop being an apologists for everything this creep does.

It has on global warming. See, you just proved my point.:cool:

You mean global warming slapped me around with its dick and I didn't notice? Damn rapist.

It's inching toward socialism. That's the system that the USSR had. It's the system that caused the USSR to collapse. Greens and Socialists are making a mess of Europe.

huh erm...USSR = Authoritarianism

Says allot really especially since European nations manage to have good welfare and environmental policy’s yet still have strong economy’s(apart from the eastern European nations of course)

Says allot really especially since European nations manage to have good welfare and environmental policy’s yet still have strong economy’s(apart from the eastern European nations of course)

Compared to the US, the EU's economy sucks:

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

The US economy is also heavily subsidized^.

SNIP

the E.U has only a slightly weaker economy than the U.S

Also I wouldn’t trust a Swedish site for information on the E.U you would get a less biased argument off the Swiss also E.U’s growth has been outstripping the U.S and Japan in growth!: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5305698.stm

Going from 1 to 2 is a huge rate of growth.

The US economy is also heavily subsidized^.

Yes, but not to the extent of European economies.

Yes, but not to the extent of European economies.
European citizens also get greater benefits out of their government than US citizens do, in terms of social benefits. It's a tradeoff, and if you're in the lower income levels, it's a better deal to be in Europe.

European citizens also get greater benefits out of their government than US citizens do, in terms of social benefits. It's a tradeoff, and if you're in the lower income levels, it's a better deal to be in Europe.

However, due to heavy "benefits" for the people, business is stifled. In the long run, the most lean economy will win out, and the US is more pro-business than Europe.

However, due to heavy "benefits" for the people, business is stifled. In the long run, the most lean economy will win out, and the US is more pro-business than Europe.
According to the links above, business seems to be humming along just fine in Europe. Again, it's a tradeoff. If you're at the top, you no doubt like it better in the US. If you're at the middle to bottom, you probably have a better life in the EU. Depends on what your priorities are.

According to the links above, business seems to be humming along just fine in Europe. Again, it's a tradeoff. If you're at the top, you no doubt like it better in the US. If you're at the middle to bottom, you probably have a better life in the EU. Depends on what your priorities are.

According to that logic, it would make sense for wealth to be distributed evenly. That would certainly be feasible in the short run, but it would be devastating in the long run. Same thing applies to Europe's current policy, only not as dramatic.

According to that logic, it would make sense for a business to be completely deregualted. That would certainly be feasible in the short run, but it would be devastating in the long run. Same thing applies to America's current policy, only not as dramatic.

Cuts both ways.

Can you say "politically motivated"?

Link (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1604092.ece)

Not to be an ass, but these are politicians. Everything they do publically is politically motivated.

I think it's just that scientists have finally reached a unified consensus on global warming and Bush is listening -- no political motivation at all.
He was told there was a scientific consensus on the matter when he referred the issue to the American Academy of Sciences shortly after he took office. Why did he wait 5 years to do anything about it?

There was insufficient proof that humans were the cause of global warming. In fact, I myself am not ready to accept it as fact until I see some hard evidence.
You're free-market faithful. Even though there is mountains aof hard evidence you're still never going to believe it. You're not someone who pretends to be Christian are you? The market is clearly your faith.

I consider Ireland and Britain to be distinct from mainland Europe. They at least have some common sense and don't run around with their socialist policies like chickens with their heads cut off.
We're in the EU. In Ireland education is free at all levels, and every family receives social welfare payments to help with the children. We're also progressing towards improving access to the health system. Now you probably think that wealth redistribution is morally wrong, but Europe is the best place in the world to live.

We're in the EU. In Ireland education is free at all levels, and every family receives social welfare payments to help with the children. We're also progressing towards improving access to the health system. Now you probably think that wealth redistribution is morally wrong, but Europe is the best place in the world to live.

And Ireland would not have been able to afford the measures that led to it's economic boom (free education, lower taxes, better infrastructure) without the socialist wealth redistribution policies of the EU.

You forget that there are hundreds of reputable dissenters around the world.
Vs thousands of people who have the proof.

It's inching toward socialism. That's the system that the USSR had. It's the system that caused the USSR to collapse. Greens and Socialists are making a mess of Europe.
You think Europe is getting more socialist? Where's your proof? If anything the mainland is becoming more neo-liberal.

Though American conservatives are sliding rightward so fast. The Republicans are already the closest thing to a fascist party in power in the west.

Hey! Look at that! I found something I can agree one with a green-ish/red-ish! The US shouldn't be expected to sign the treaty while China gets a free pass on it. They pollute quite a bit too.
I'm not a red (socialist/communist). So as an American would you be willing to enter the Kyoto treaty if China did the same?

According to that logic, it would make sense for wealth to be distributed evenly.
No it wouldn't, but the working and middle classes voted for their own interests so of course there was some redistribution.

What's the point of a high GDP if the citizens aren't reaping the benefits?

And Ireland would not have been able to afford the measures that led to it's economic boom (free education, lower taxes, better infrastructure) without the socialist wealth redistribution policies of the EU.
Correct. For the first 30 years of our EU membership we were receiving money, and it helped us a lot.

I think it's just that scientists have finally reached a unified consensus on global warming and Bush is listening -- no political motivation at all.

http://ruphus.com/stash/roflmao.gif

So, when the evidence points towards "god" being man-made, Bush will listen?

We're in the EU. In Ireland education is free at all levels, and every family receives social welfare payments to help with the children. We're also progressing towards improving access to the health system. Now you probably think that wealth redistribution is morally wrong, but Europe is the best place in the world to live.

If all one wants to achieve, financially, is mediocrity, Europe doesn't sound too bad. If one wants to be fantastically successful, the redistribution just won't let it be so. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but most business owners that I know never set out to just get by.

If all one wants to achieve, financially, is mediocrity, Europe doesn't sound too bad. If one wants to be fantastically successful, the redistribution just won't let it be so. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but most business owners that I know never set out to just get by.

Mediocrity is a bit harsh of a word choice, don't you think? I mean, it's not like the average worker in the EU is barely ekeing out a living. They've traded a little ready cash for extended paid vacations, national health care, a working mass transit system and terrific unemployment protections among many other things. I'd be willing to bet that if you offered that sort of a package to the average American worker--even telling them what it would cost, tax wise--the majority would jump at it. And there still seem to be plenty of fantastically successful business owners in the EU.

If all one wants to achieve, financially, is mediocrity, Europe doesn't sound too bad. If one wants to be fantastically successful, the redistribution just won't let it be so. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but most business owners that I know never set out to just get by.
See the Nazz's post.

Mediocrity is a bit harsh of a word choice, don't you think? I mean, it's not like the average worker in the EU is barely ekeing out a living. They've traded a little ready cash for extended paid vacations, national health care, a working mass transit system and terrific unemployment protections among many other things. I'd be willing to bet that if you offered that sort of a package to the average American worker--even telling them what it would cost, tax wise--the majority would jump at it. And there still seem to be plenty of fantastically successful business owners in the EU.

You underestimate the average American's despise of taxes and overestimate their ability to reason.

You underestimate the average American's despise of taxes and overestimate their ability to reason.

Possibly, but you have to remember that the US public has been trained to hate all taxation. That's been the greatest success, to my mind, of the Republican party, convincing economically stressed religious voters to vote against their economic self-interest because of social issues. But I think that if they can be convinced one way, they can be convinced the other way as well.

Mediocrity is a bit harsh of a word choice, don't you think? I mean, it's not like the average worker in the EU is barely ekeing out a living. They've traded a little ready cash for extended paid vacations, national health care, a working mass transit system and terrific unemployment protections among many other things. I'd be willing to bet that if you offered that sort of a package to the average American worker--even telling them what it would cost, tax wise--the majority would jump at it. And there still seem to be plenty of fantastically successful business owners in the EU.

That's the sort of thing that the unions have bargained for over the years. Now, GM and Ford are collapsing as they become bankrupt. Back to the EU/US comparison, though, Every article I see on the subject of millionaires, clearly shows the United States in the lead. Asia appears to be in second place and the EU is somewhere behind those two regions.

I know what hoops a business owner has to jump through to satisfy the different levels of government in the United States. In general, I pay the workers wages to the worker, and then I pay them again to the government. When you list the 'protection' that the workers have in the EU, I shudder when I consider how hard it must be to start and grow a business.

Anyhow, this is too far off topic, even for me. So y'all have the last word and we'll leave it be.

That's the sort of thing that the unions have bargained for over the years. Now, GM and Ford are collapsing as they become bankrupt. Back to the EU/US comparison, though, Every article I see on the subject of millionaires, clearly shows the United States in the lead. Asia appears to be in second place and the EU is somewhere behind those two regions.

I know what hoops a business owner has to jump through to satisfy the different levels of government in the United States. In general, I pay the workers wages to the worker, and then I pay them again to the government. When you list the 'protection' that the workers have in the EU, I shudder when I consider how hard it must be to start and grow a business.

Anyhow, this is too far off topic, even for me. So y'all have the last word and we'll leave it be.GM and Ford are going bankrupt for two reasons--the first is that they've made very poor decisions as far as their product line is concerned. But the second is that they're picking up a lot of the tab for things like health care that their Asian and European counterparts have the government pick up in the form of social services. They're less competitive as a result. GM and Ford could be more competitive if there were a national health care service--it's a wonder to me that they're not screaming for a system like that, since it's health care costs that make up the majority of their financial ailments.

You're free-market faithful. Even though there is mountains aof hard evidence you're still never going to believe it. You're not someone who pretends to be Christian are you? The market is clearly your faith.

I'm sorry, what does the free market have to do with the factuality of global warming? I don't doubt that the world is indeed warming up -- that is indisputable scientific fact. What you have to remember is that the same thing happened before, during the last ice age. Did humans cause it back then? No, of course not. Such things are in the periodic pattern of warming and cooling that the Earth goes through. I do not think there is sufficient experimentation physically linking pollution with global warming. Is the theory that light can go through pollution one way but not the other?

We're in the EU. In Ireland education is free at all levels, and every family receives social welfare payments to help with the children. We're also progressing towards improving access to the health system. Now you probably think that wealth redistribution is morally wrong, but Europe is the best place in the world to live.

If people were entirely rational, then Ireland's economic system would fall flat on its face. Why should families work for a living if they can just use their welfare payments? How fast will the economy grow if people are supposed to subsidize the education of others instead of investing their money in the economy? The same applies to the health system. The economy will either grow sluggishly or shrink if people's spending money is frittered away on education and health care. Of course, you probably have less defense spending than the US, which partially compensates, and you don't have illegal immigrants draining welfare benefits and the like.

What's the point of a high GDP if the citizens aren't reaping the benefits?

In the words of the last good liberal president: "a rising tide lifts all boats." If the GDP of the US is increasing, then everybody will be reaping the benefits. Who cares how much the next guy has is he's increasing your real wages and his investment in the US economy will ultimately make you more successful, too?

I'm sorry, what does the free market have to do with the factuality of global warming?
In eality, not much, but it's obvious that the main reason the US Right wing opposes attempts to curb global warming is because they view it as an international plot to impose communist regulation on business.


I don't doubt that the world is indeed warming up -- that is indisputable scientific fact. What you have to remember is that the same thing happened before, during the last ice age. Did humans cause it back then? No, of course not. Such things are in the periodic pattern of warming and cooling that the Earth goes through. I do not think there is sufficient experimentation physically linking pollution with global warming. Is the theory that light can go through pollution one way but not the other?
If there's sufficient evidence for Bush, surely there's sufficient evidence for anyone.

If people were entirely rational, then Ireland's economic system would fall flat on its face. Why should families work for a living if they can just use their welfare payments?
I didn't say that the Child Benefit Payment was enough to subsidise the life of an entire family. It's meant to help fund raising of children. In our constitution, the family values are enshrined as the main priority of the state. Ergo, the Child Benefit Payment is a constitutional right.

How fast will the economy grow if people are supposed to subsidize the education of others instead of investing their money in the economy?
Education supplies business with a high-quality workforce. Vetalia will tell you that public education is vital for economic success, and he's hardly a socialist.

Name some successful countries without public education.

The same applies to the health system. The economy will either grow sluggishly or shrink if people's spending money is frittered away on education and health care.
That's certainly not the story of Ireland in the past decade.

Of course, you probably have less defense spending than the US, which partially compensates, and you don't have illegal immigrants draining welfare benefits and the like.
Yes, we don't waste so much money on offence as America does. Unfortunately some immigrants have exploited the welfare system, and the extent of this has recently been discovered by investigation. This means that welfare will be doled out more carefully in future.

In the words of the last good liberal president: "a rising tide lifts all boats."
What about the people who don't have boats?

In eality, not much, but it's obvious that the main reason the US Right wing opposes attempts to curb global warming is because they view it as an international plot to impose communist regulation on business.

The regulations are completely communist, but strong anti-business politics are indeed the trademark of communism. It is, by definition, an international plot -- many countries have signed the Kyoto Pact and are trying to pressure the US into signing it. Obviously it isn't limited to a few countries -- it is truly an international conspiracy.

If there's sufficient evidence for Bush, surely there's sufficient evidence for anyone.

No, it simply shows that Bush is an intelligent man. He realizes that there is a chance that global warming is caused by human activities, and that it is better to curb those activities now that letting our great-grandchildren pay the price of our potential mistake.

I didn't say that the Child Benefit Payment was enough to subsidise the life of an entire family.

Is there a way to make sure that the benefits actually go to children? Are you sure that it is better to force taxpayers to give money to children instead of investing it into the economy? Again, it stifles economic growth.

Education supplies business with a high-quality workforce. Vetalia will tell you that public education is vital for economic success, and he's hardly a socialist.

I also recognize that good schooling is necessary for an adequate workforce given outsourcing and the like. However, subsidizing universities isn't the way to go about that. People who are really that smart will be able to get a scholarship or to get a job to pay for college.

What about the people who don't have boats?


They should learn about metaphors.

Has anybody actually seen this story anywhere else? I'm looking all over for it but I can't find it.

I've looked in all these places and did all kinds of searches on them and can't find this story.

www.cnn.com
www.msnbc.com
www.yahoo.com
I even tried here: www.energybulletin.net and I couldn't find it and they print everything.

http://ruphus.com/stash/roflmao.gif

So, if the evidence points towards "god" being man-made, Bush would listen?

Edited for PC-itude.

That and too many people believe in God for that kind of shot to go unnoticed.

Bad call.

In the words of the last good liberal president: "a rising tide lifts all boats." If the GDP of the US is increasing, then everybody will be reaping the benefits. Who cares how much the next guy has is he's increasing your real wages and his investment in the US economy will ultimately make you more successful, too?
"A rising tides lifts all boats" is a great philosophy for those who are wealthy enough to own a boat. It lets everyone else drown. Not everyone benefits from increases in the GDP.

The regulations are completely communist, but strong anti-business politics are indeed the trademark of communism.
So curbing the activities of businesses that science has proved will severly degrade the assets of, or kill a substantial portion of, the world population is communist?
What does capitalism represent?

Is there a way to make sure that the benefits actually go to children?
Yes, you give it to the families that are supporting them. Or the health care system that helps make sure that every child has a good chance to make it to adult hood or to the education system that sees that every child is equipped to not only deal with modern life but to take it on to the next stage.

Are you sure that it is better to force taxpayers to give money to children instead of investing it into the economy?
Fun though it would be to have BP make even more than the $729 per second profit it records at the moment, I think I would rather have free healthcare and education for everyone. And a system of public transport that is safer, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than private transport. There is no where in the UK that I cannot get to, in 24 hours but by and train, and the same can probably be said for getting from where I live to most of western Europe.

Of course, if you take a strategic rather than short-termist view, investing in your workforce is investing in the economy.


Again, it stifles economic growth.
I'm not sure that a deficit of $9 trillion (up almost 90% since GWB took power) is a sign of economic growth. It is increasing at an average rate of $1.70 billion per day since September 30, 2005 Sounds more like a complete inability to manage an economy. Hardling a sterling recommendation of a booming economy when compared to the EU where its charter prevents it from being in deficit.

I wonder what would happen if that debt was called in?


I also recognize that good schooling is necessary for an adequate workforce given outsourcing and the like. However, subsidizing universities isn't the way to go about that. People who are really that smart will be able to get a scholarship or to get a job to pay for college.
Who subsidises the scholarships?
Not the Public sector apparently.
If it is the Private sector, why would they subsidise anything that isn't directly related to their business? Won't this mean that the Arts and Humanities will become the providance of the rich (or 'My core support' as Bush calls them) and that the other 90% of the population (or 'the Morlocks') will be forced into vocational degrees, if all their spare money is poured into the economy rather than education to develop an 'adequate' workforce?


or to get a job to pay for college.
How much does tuition cost at one of the Ivy league Universities?
How young can you legally be to start work?

Of course an 'adequate' workforce doesn't cut it in the competitive markets which is why the US has to massively subsidise most of its industries (or create captive markets for them e.g. Defence industries with Israel, SA, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, etc or construction and oil industries with Iraq and manipulating world oil prices or perhaps farming where the US subsidises farmers to not farm becuase they are paid vast amounts of political/financial capital to do so by the farming lobby.

(or create captive markets for them e.g. Defence industries with Israel, SA, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, etc or construction and oil industries with Iraq and manipulating world oil prices or perhaps farming where the US subsidises farmers to not farm becuase they are paid vast amounts of political/financial capital to do so by the farming lobby.
You're not saying that the U.S, is manipulating oil prices, are you? The U.S. has absolutely no control over oil prices. The last bit of control left is in OPEC, not in Exxon.

The regulations are completely communist, but strong anti-business politics are indeed the trademark of communism. It is, by definition, an international plot -- many countries have signed the Kyoto Pact and are trying to pressure the US into signing it. Obviously it isn't limited to a few countries -- it is truly an international conspiracy.
Thanks for proving my point. BTW, conspiracy implies secrecy. But don't let that stop us...

zOMG!!! C0MMUNIZMSaaaaaaaah!!!11!!

No, it simply shows that Bush is an intelligent man. He realizes that there is a chance that global warming is caused by human activities, and that it is better to curb those activities now that letting our great-grandchildren pay the price of our potential mistake.
So stop advocating destructive policies.

Is there a way to make sure that the benefits actually go to children?
There's more chance of it getting to them than if there was no such payment. Obviously.

Are you sure that it is better to force taxpayers to give money to children instead of investing it into the economy? Again, it stifles economic growth.
It doesn't stifle economic growth.

I also recognize that good schooling is necessary for an adequate workforce given outsourcing and the like. However, subsidizing universities isn't the way to go about that. People who are really that smart will be able to get a scholarship or to get a job to pay for college.
Yes it is the way to go about that and my country is proving it. I suppose they do say that reality has a left-wing bias. ;)

They should learn about metaphors.
I was also speaking in metaphors.

If people were entirely rational, then Ireland's economic system would fall flat on its face. Why should families work for a living if they can just use their welfare payments?
Indeed, why would you want to be middle class if you can be in the range from poor to lower middle class? Moreover, why would anyone who has a half a million work just to have a full million? Clearly, this is the reason why there are no millionaires in the USA.

How fast will the economy grow if people are supposed to subsidize the education of others instead of investing their money in the economy?
Investing in the education of others is investing in the economy...

Investing in the education of others is investing in the economy...

Investing? More like the forced redistribution of wealth to the elite who go to college. The people who suffer are the blue-collar workers who aren't go to college yet perform one of the most necessary jobs in the economy. You're not making the rich rich and the poor poorer -- you're increasing the middle class and then placing lots of people in the very lowest class.

Thanks for proving my point. BTW, conspiracy implies secrecy. But don't let that stop us...

zOMG!!! C0MMUNIZMSaaaaaaaah!!!11!!

Conspiracy does not imply secrecy. According to The Free Dictionary, a conspiracy can be "a joining or acting together, as if by sinister design." A plan to sabotage the US economy is sinister by design, even if the plan is quite overt and everyone knows it. Europe -- you can be jealous of the US economy all you want, just don't try to derail it with your global warming propaganda. We can decide for ourselves, thank you very much.

So stop advocating destructive policies.

Since this is a democratic country, it is up to the consumers to decide whether global warming caused by humans is real or not. Then they can choose to buy from whichever company pollutes the least if they so wish. Freedom -- how sweet it is.

There's more chance of it getting to them than if there was no such payment. Obviously.

There's a much greater chance of it getting misused to finance a drug habit than if there was no such payment at all. Obviously.

It doesn't stifle economic growth.

The more than consumers contribute to the economy, the more economic growth there is. If consumers have less money to spend, then economic growth is indeed stifled. However, it may theoretically be outweighed by the added revenue contributed by rich, educated people who benefitted from the system.

Yes it is the way to go about that and my country is proving it. I suppose they do say that reality has a left-wing bias. ;)

The US is much more economically powerful that Ireland. It would be even more so if we didn't need to allocate so much money to fund national defense, but we are forced to. So Ireland has a +1 on that count. Also, US corporate taxation rates are startlingly high. They need to be seriously slashed to get our economy going.

I was also speaking in metaphors.

Your metaphor is invalid and moot. In JFK's metaphor, a "boat" was a person. You said, except the people who don't have boats. You said that every person would benefit unless they aren't a person.

Indeed, why would you want to be middle class if you can be in the range from poor to lower middle class? Moreover, why would anyone who has a half a million work just to have a full million? Clearly, this is the reason why there are no millionaires in the USA.Forgive me if you are beings sarcastic. It's hard to read sarcasm on a board sometimes, but you don't actually think there's no millionairs in the US, right?


Investing in the education of others is investing in the economy...

That's true. But there's nothing funny about that.

Forgive me if you are beings sarcastic. It's hard to read sarcasm on a board sometimes, but you don't actually think there's no millionairs in the US, right?

Don't worry, I'm being sarcastic.