Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
29,441 - 29,460 of 45,859 Comments Last updated 58 min ago

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31112
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> Most rich folks got that way by having know how and working hard and doing without so they could grow their buisnesses. luch has almost nothing to do with it. Share with who? Ill not share with parasites who had ought naught with my success.
Of course hard work and know how are important. However, there are many many folks who have those qualities and didn't make it. Just admit it. Things just fall into place. Luck. Then a lot of other rich folks got there by bending the law or some bonanza that they fell into. Luck. Rich folks are not necessarily smarter than the rest of us. Just happened to be in the right place and knew the right people. Luck. Many rich folks think money is more important than anything else in life and will do anything to get it, even when they have more than they can ever possibly spend. It is their security blanket. Of course they don't want to share it. It is all they have to define themselves. They hoard it.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31113
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."
"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038%). Only 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin."
Joseph D’Aleo
-
How many $trillions do alarmists suggest is spent on cutting a small percentage of that lot?
Another stupid statement.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31114
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who has ever opened a bottle of soda water and forgot to close it afterwards would tell you what happens next. So your carbonic acid would be released into the atmostphere.
As for your claim about an increase of ten degrees. Consider that twelve thousand years ago the global temperatures were ten degrees cooler than now. That the earth has already warmed that much. So would the world change from what it is now, yes. Then again the world has always been in a state of change. The only ones who seem to think it should be static are those like you. Even with the fact that the climate has never been static, that it always been in a state of change.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/clim...
When the ocean freezes, the liquid water is at the freezing point. At this temperature it readily absorbs CO2. The cool water will remain more acidic until it finally circulates to the mid latitudes where it slowly begins to warm. Only then will it slowly lose excess CO2. If the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase, it will lose less of the CO2. The ocean is acidifying and that is harming the crustaceans that are necessary for the web of life in the ocean. As the human population steadily increases, food from the ocean is becoming more and more stressed. Acidification of the ocean is becoming a problem.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31115
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that we do not want waste. However that is a minuscule part of the debt. It takes a lot of money to run our country. Without the bailouts, we would have even less revenue. Those who have the large benefits from our system need to step up and be counted.
The decrease in taxes didn't work very well for the last administration did it? Btw, I paid into SS for fifty years and didn't whine. Now I enjoy the small sum I get.
The way out is inflation.
Actually decreasing taxes in the last administration caused the governments revenue to go up. Spending went up as well, but revenue increased with a decrease in taxes.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_...
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31116
Jul 3, 2012
 
When speaking with conservative political ideologues on any subject, it never takes long for the conversation to devolve to rants about the "urgent need" to starve government so that it can be drowned in the bathtub, as Norquist says. So it is with climate.

However, If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year.
In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt would almost vanish over the next decade--AND we could easily invest the 1% of GDP it would take to gain energy independence and persuade the rest of the world to join us in preventing runaway climate cooking.

http://tinyurl.com/7r6odls
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31117
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Many folks have just as much on the ball as those who have "made it". Most rich folks are just lucky. They just happened to be at the right place and knew the right people and things just went their way. They should be willing to share their good fortunes that our governing system has made possible for them with all those who were not so lucky.
The super rich have so many ways to shelter their riches that they are not really "sharing" that much. Of course they pay more because of their very large incomes but they have a cap on SS making the middle class pay a much higher percentage than they do. I believe that if you look at the figures, you will see that the upper middle class pays a much higher rate of real 02taxes than do the affluent.
Sounds like FNC has sucked you in with their propaganda.
As long as you believe that someone's income is a result of 'luck' and not hard work, then you will continue to believe it's ok to take their money.

Most people who 'make it' do so by working !#%& hard. That 24/7 statement is the reality for most who 'make it'.

Envy allows someone to justify taking from those who 'made it' and is the hallmark of a second rater. Someone who refuses to accept that he didn't work as hard as someone else, so is left with believing the other guy got his by hook or crook or just plain luck.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31118
Jul 3, 2012
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as you believe that someone's income is a result of 'luck' and not hard work, then you will continue to believe it's ok to take their money.
Most people who 'make it' do so by working !#%& hard. That 24/7 statement is the reality for most who 'make it'.
Envy allows someone to justify taking from those who 'made it' and is the hallmark of a second rater. Someone who refuses to accept that he didn't work as hard as someone else, so is left with believing the other guy got his by hook or crook or just plain luck.
Of course it involves hard work for many, but others work just as hard and haven't made it because they were not as lucky! I know that it is hard for some to internalize, but no one has ever made it on their own.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31119
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as you believe that someone's income is a result of 'luck' and not hard work, then you will continue to believe it's ok to take their money.
Most people who 'make it' do so by working !#%& hard. That 24/7 statement is the reality for most who 'make it'.
Envy allows someone to justify taking from those who 'made it' and is the hallmark of a second rater. Someone who refuses to accept that he didn't work as hard as someone else, so is left with believing the other guy got his by hook or crook or just plain luck.
BTW, I do not envy the rich, I have plenty. Not rich but comfortable. But I understand that I have been fortunate (lucky) and am willing to share with the less fortunate. I do not whine about paying my taxes.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31120
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:
When speaking with conservative political ideologues on any subject, it never takes long for the conversation to devolve to rants about the "urgent need" to starve government so that it can be drowned in the bathtub, as Norquist says. So it is with climate.
However, If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year.
In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt would almost vanish over the next decade--AND we could easily invest the 1% of GDP it would take to gain energy independence and persuade the rest of the world to join us in preventing runaway climate cooking.
http://tinyurl.com/7r6odls
Northie, the budget deficit for one year is $1.3 trillion dollars. A budget deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it gets in revenue. Our government is spending $1.3 trillion dollars more than it is collecting in revenue.

Your number of an additional $716 billion in revenue a year would reduce the budget deficit for one year from $1.3 trillion dollars to $1.2 trillion dollars.

After taxing the 'rich' and collecting $716 billion dollars, we would be adding to the debt only $1.2 trillion dollars each year. That will not pay off our debt. It won't even make interest payments. Interest on the US debt for May 2012, only one month, was $30,506,664,352.19. I'll let you multiply that out by 12.

We can't collect enough in taxes to do this. Debt is 101.5% of GDP. If you don't understand GDP, look it up.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31121
Jul 3, 2012
 
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it involves hard work for many, but others work just as hard and haven't made it because they were not as lucky! I know that it is hard for some to internalize, but no one has ever made it on their own.
Oh I get it, as long as you believe you are just a cog in the wheel and are subject to the bumps in the road you will not understand, that some are the wheel.

There are many cogs, few wheels.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31122
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Your number of an additional $716 billion in revenue a year would reduce the budget deficit for one year from $1.3 trillion dollars to $1.2 trillion dollars.
Are your math skills really that bad? That explains so very much.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31123
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Are your math skills really that bad? That explains so very much.
\

My bad typing too fast. Still same concept, wouldn't pay the deficit.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31124
Jul 3, 2012
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>\
My bad typing too fast. Still same concept, wouldn't pay the deficit.
This is the most stupid post ever in Topix.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31125
Jul 3, 2012
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>\
My bad typing too fast. Still same concept, wouldn't pay the deficit.
What are you really trying to say other than big bold lies?

Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31126
Jul 3, 2012
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What are you really trying to say other than big bold lies?
I am saying that when I put the big numbers into the calculator I misplaced the decimal point. When I did that the result was wrong. My bad, I should have verified it. I didn't.

Doesn't change the fact that $716 billion in additional revenue would not pay for one year's deficit.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31127
Jul 3, 2012
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>This is the most stupid post ever in Topix.
If that was my most stupid post on Topix, I guess I'm doing pretty good.
Teddy R

North Vancouver, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31128
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:
When speaking with conservative political ideologues on any subject, it never takes long for the conversation to devolve to rants about the "urgent need" to starve government so that it can be drowned in the bathtub, as Norquist says. So it is with climate.
However, If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year.
In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt would almost vanish over the next decade--AND we could easily invest the 1% of GDP it would take to gain energy independence and persuade the rest of the world to join us in preventing runaway climate cooking.
http://tinyurl.com/7r6odls
Your "eat the RICH!!" mentality is delusional bunkum.

Simple math shows just how foolishly delusional it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

You're welcome to continue living in your little make-believe world where limitless amounts of wealth rain down from the Magic Money Tree to solve all the world's ills, but at least try to understand why those of use who can add a column of figures accurately and choose to remain grounded in the real world can't follow you there.

Check your arithmetic.
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31129
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see if the third time is charmed.
You'll recall that the issue was our ability to handle the cost of climate solutions, which the McKinsey study estimates to be just 1% of GDP--a small fraction of what we just spent to rescue banks and insurers. Fishaholic complained that we cannot pay the debt we have, so even a small additional expense is impossible.
This uses one canard to manufacture another. The right wing echo chamber's assertion that we cannot pay the present debt is based on the assumption that we cannot raise taxes on corporations and the rich back to the levels of 1960, which is patently untrue. If we did that, we could retire most US government debt in short order.
This is relevant to the climate discussion only in that it shows the ease of meeting the financial needs of the solution, which are minor indeed. The only real obstacle is the oil and coal industry's selfish desire to delay carbon taxes, which would force them to write down the vast value of their buried reserves.
The left wing echo chamber of taxing the rich is getting old and tired. The 1% of the wealthiest Americans have about 2.7 trillion dollars of the total income of the US. Taxing an extra 5% would amount to 135 billion dollars. Do you have a guarantee from our government that money would be put aside to pay down the debt and not be spent? The spending is what is out of control. Obamacare ALONE has unfunded costs starting in the year 2015 of 110 billion and by the year will 2022 will be 169 billion for a total of 1.2 trillion over 10 years unfunded. Then add to that our baseline budgeting method where we add 7% every year to spending levels. So tell me how 135 billion will pay off our total 56 trillion dollar debt and our 117 trillion unfunded liabilities in a heartbeat.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31130
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

I posted:
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>This is the most stupid post ever in Topix.
He replied as:
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was my most stupid post on Topix, I guess I'm doing pretty good.
Where did you see "your?"

FAIL: Reading comprehension.
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31131
Jul 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Many folks have just as much on the ball as those who have "made it". Most rich folks are just lucky. They just happened to be at the right place and knew the right people and things just went their way. They should be willing to share their good fortunes that our governing system has made possible for them with all those who were not so lucky.
The super rich have so many ways to shelter their riches that they are not really "sharing" that much. Of course they pay more because of their very large incomes but they have a cap on SS making the middle class pay a much higher percentage than they do. I believe that if you look at the figures, you will see that the upper middle class pays a much higher rate of real 02taxes than do the affluent.
Sounds like FNC has sucked you in with their propaganda.
Care to elaborate on how the rich are "lucky." Most people in the US who are rich were not born into it, but worked hard, were imaginative, had talent, took risks, etc. If those who became rich did so because of our governing system, then it is because we are a country of equal opportunity not equal outcomes. The poor have the same opportunity as those who became rich. Was Obama "lucky." Was Oprah Winfrey "lucky?" Was Bill Gates "lucky?" Was Steve Jobs "lucky?" Was Mark Zuckerburg "lucky?" Was Stephen Spielberg "lucky?" There are plenty of rags to riches stories in the US and I bet none of them are because they were "lucky." I bet all of them would tell you they worked their butt off to get where they are.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

53 Users are viewing the New York Forum right now

Search the New York Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 7 min NYStateOfMind 305,995
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 10 min cpeter1313 305,170
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 50 min SamBee 68,428
what is obama's strength 1 hr the real deal 1
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 2 hr the real deal 10,230
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 2 hr Mrs Manicotti 14,397
Cher Calvin (Nov '08) 3 hr Ron Wells 19
•••
•••

New York News Video

•••
•••

New York Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

New York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

New York News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in New York
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••