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 46,326 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31155 Jul 3, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Corporations are people.
Taxes levied on corporations are merely passed on to their customers, who end up bearing the burden in the form of higher prices.
There is no Magic Money Tree.
Government is people.

People can improve in governing.

Money is disappearing in our economy, they say. There will be more corruption by the business entities, they say. Etc.
Churmudgeon

Cherokee Village, AR

#31156 Jul 3, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe you.
They keep their wealth for safety sake. Afterwards, their dogs get rich.
Just because that is what you would do doesnt mean your correct. A strange thing happens when you give back you recieve more in return. You cant give away what you do for a living. However you can give away some of the profits. The Best way Ive found for me is to help someone else to get good a start
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31157 Jul 3, 2012
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> Just because that is what you would do doesnt mean your correct. A strange thing happens when you give back you recieve more in return. You cant give away what you do for a living. However you can give away some of the profits. The Best way Ive found for me is to help someone else to get good a start
Oh you assume a lot about me. Don't but tell us how you help someone else to get good a start.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#31158 Jul 3, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You cynically twist what you are so pleased to term the "conservative mantra" to fit your collectivist ideological bias.
The conservative (more properly, the "free enterprise") philosophy is more accurately rendered as, "it was you who took the risks and made the personal sacrifices required to achieve success. Just as you would have borne the consequences of failure largely on your own, so now are you fairly entitled to enjoy the rewards of success."
It is plain you prefer to see society incentivize mediocrity instead of exceptionalism, and desire to live in a country that seeks the lowest common denominator, in which everyone gets a trophy just for "participating."
That, thankfully, is not America - not yet, anyway ...
Sorry to disappoint. All I am saying is that folks who have the lucky breaks should be willing to support the system that made it possible for them to gain. Free enterprise is a great motivator and works well when it is tempered with proper regulations.

You "free enterprise" folks seem to believe that Darwinian economics is the total answer. We have seen where that goes when it is not reigned in. The masses suffer.
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

#31159 Jul 3, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe you.
They keep their wealth for safety sake. Afterwards, their dogs get rich.
Just wondering if you are speaking of Leona Helmsley. She had a 4 billion estate and left the bulk of it to charity, but of course, everyone focuses on the 12 million she left for the dog. It's her money, she gave most of it to charity, but yet that still isn't enough for the progressives. Can you please provide a rich person who doesn't give some of their money to charity?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/...
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

#31160 Jul 3, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to disappoint. All I am saying is that folks who have the lucky breaks should be willing to support the system that made it possible for them to gain. Free enterprise is a great motivator and works well when it is tempered with proper regulations.
You "free enterprise" folks seem to believe that Darwinian economics is the total answer. We have seen where that goes when it is not reigned in. The masses suffer.
Who says they aren't supporting the system. The wealthiest 5% already pay 57% of the taxes collected.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#31161 Jul 3, 2012
fishaholic wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be willing to agree with your statement IF the gov't would go back to it's spending level of 1961. The problem with the gov't is that the more money that come in, never seems to go to paying down the debt/deficit. It always goes to social engineering programs or some other nonsense that goes unaccounted for.
Even with your $716B figure, that is only half of the annual deficit. The other half is added to the national debt that continues to balloon with reckless abandon. You could take everyone at 100% and still not pay down the DEBT. You make fun of others' math, but yours isn't much better. Obviously, you never took economics 101. For that matter, looks like you didn't even take 3rd grade math.
The spending level hasn't changed much, despite the growth of Social Security and Medicare as life spans have grown longer. In 1961, all government tax revenue accounted for 29% of GDP. In 2010 it accounted for all of 32%--up from 27% the year before due to GDP shrinkage. This is also considerably lower than the revenue share of GDP for other rich countries (Sweden's is around 47%, for example).

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_ch...
Teddy R

Vancouver, Canada

#31163 Jul 3, 2012
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> Most wealthy folks try and find ways of giving back.
And they succeed marvellously in doing so - private philanthropy runs into the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars every year.
Teddy R

Vancouver, Canada

#31165 Jul 3, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Government is people.
People can improve in governing.
Indeed - entirely true.

And people can most improve in governing by simply NOT DOING - keeping their meddlesome progressive/collectivist/contr ol freak noses OUT of people's private lives to the greatest extent possible consistent with peace and public order, and keeping their incompetent progressive/collectivist/contr ol freak hands OFF of money and matters that private interests are better able to manage.
Teddy R

Vancouver, Canada

#31166 Jul 3, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to disappoint. All I am saying is that folks who have the lucky breaks should be willing to support the system that made it possible for them to gain.
And they are willing - and do - by paying a hugely disproportionate share of taxes, and engaging in private philanthropy that totals hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the US, to far better effect that that enforced "public charity" so dully administered by Government.

To suggest folks who have the lucky breaks are NOT willingly supporting the system that made it possible for them to gain is frankly churlish.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Free enterprise is a great motivator and works well when it is tempered with proper regulations.
Agreed.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You "free enterprise" folks seem to believe that Darwinian economics is the total answer. We have seen where that goes when it is not reigned in. The masses suffer.
A bullshit strawman.

"Free enterprise" folks make no such claim, and merely believe that a free market economic system - wisely regulated - is the "least worst" system yet devised.

Either you can show a living, breathing specimen of a system that delivers demonstrably better - or what are we debating?
BLOWZO the MARXIST HICK

Los Angeles, CA

#31167 Jul 3, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to disappoint. All I am saying is that folks who have the lucky breaks should be willing to support the system that made it possible for them to gain. Free enterprise is a great motivator and works well when it is tempered with proper regulations.
You "free enterprise" folks seem to believe that Darwinian economics is the total answer. We have seen where that goes when it is not reigned in. The masses suffer.
You NON free enterprise snakes are what happened to Soviet Russia. Nobody's accusing you of ever having a daughter someone would pay as a prostitute but if you have one, you should put her out on the street to try to recoup some of that LOST VALUE the MARXISTS you're such a major part of took away from the Russians.
Your wife, she can put out some too. Because you people have had all the breaks, it's time you started paying back the system some.
Teddy R

Vancouver, Canada

#31168 Jul 3, 2012
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
The spending level hasn't changed much, despite the growth of Social Security and Medicare as life spans have grown longer. In 1961, all government tax revenue accounted for 29% of GDP. In 2010 it accounted for all of 32%--up from 27% the year before due to GDP shrinkage. This is also considerably lower than the revenue share of GDP for other rich countries (Sweden's is around 47%, for example).
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_ch...
In 2009, US Federal government spending exploded from its post-war norm of 18-19% of GDP to 25% of GDP, a level unprecedented since 1943, in the middle of WWII.

Federal spending remains at that wholly unsustainable level.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#31170 Jul 4, 2012
fishaholic wrote:
Clueless as usual. Have you ever thought that it might not be luck, as you call it, when people are in the right place and know the right people? Have you ever considered that people work at knowing where to be and, through their path to success, meet the right people that will eventually let them get to their goals? Nah, you're right, it's just luck. No skill involved in being successful. By stating that being successful is just blind luck is pretty insulting to successful people's intelligence.
News flash! Nowhere in the book of life says that everyone will be successful. I think chapter 2 says that nothing in life is fair either, no matter how hard politicians try to bulldoze the playing field. The only thing for sure is that you will NEVER get there if you don't try.
I think you completely missed Bozo's point, probably because his envy was too well hidden.
I don't find his ignorant reference to luck making people successful to be insulting, maybe that's how it worked for him.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#31172 Jul 4, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
And they succeed marvellously in doing so - private philanthropy runs into the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars every year.
As it should. However, you call corporations "persons". What percent of their wealth is given away?

Yes, many rich "real" people give back some of their riches when they finally understand that all that excessive wealth means little to them when they approach the end of life. Many never understand that excessive amounts of money are pretty much meaningless to life. However this is all they have at this point that they believe is valuable. It is a security blanket. It is all they have that makes them believe they are better than anyone else.

Why is redistributing the wealth upwards good for the country?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#31173 Jul 4, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I think you completely missed Bozo's point, probably because his envy was too well hidden.
I don't find his ignorant reference to luck making people successful to be insulting, maybe that's how it worked for him.
Most greedy folks will not admit that luck brought them fortune. They really believe that it was all through their great intelligence that they did it. They must do this or they will feel a little less important and superior.

I admit to good fortune. Sure I worked hard and educated myself. Necessary traits but luck helped me. I envy no one. My life is very successful. I have no problem helping others. I am willing to share.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#31174 Jul 4, 2012
BLOWZO the MARXIST HICK wrote:
<quoted text>
You NON free enterprise snakes are what happened to Soviet Russia. Nobody's accusing you of ever having a daughter someone would pay as a prostitute but if you have one, you should put her out on the street to try to recoup some of that LOST VALUE the MARXISTS you're such a major part of took away from the Russians.
Your wife, she can put out some too. Because you people have had all the breaks, it's time you started paying back the system some.
You are a totally stupid redneck. It is pitiful that you must resort to demeaning my daughter and wife. I am for private enterprise. I pay my dues and do not whimper.
LoL

Los Angeles, CA

#31175 Jul 4, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a totally stupid redneck. It is pitiful that you must resort to demeaning my daughter and wife. I am for private enterprise. I pay my dues and do not whimper.
A.L.L. your evil @$$ does is whimper. You WHIMPER about THE COUNTRY NOT BEING ENOUGH LIKE SOVIET RUSSIA.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31176 Jul 4, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I think you completely missed Bozo's point, probably because his envy was too well hidden.
I don't find his ignorant reference to luck making people successful to be insulting, maybe that's how it worked for him.
You are projecting your own envy.

Go back to bed.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#31177 Jul 4, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Ten Years And Counting: Where's The Global Warming?
UUUUUHHHHH, pull the curtain out at the bottom just enough to peer out of your step dad's house and see the brown grass at the city dump.

I'm just joking here, well on the "city dump" part anyway.ha
Teddy R

Vancouver, Canada

#31178 Jul 4, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
As it should. However, you call corporations "persons".
No - I said they were "people." Yes, they are corporate "persons" in a legal sense, but they are also people - the individual shareholders that together have put their wealth at risk in the corporation. And corporations are the individual employees that work together to further the business enterprise.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>What percent of their wealth is given away?
Good question. Beats me. It's interesting you hold such a fixed, negative view of corporate philanthropy without knowing this rather fundamental fact yourself. I'm sure it varies widely by corporation - some corps entire mission is philanthropic & they are formed for that specific purpose.

But why don't you do the research and get back to us with the answer, ok?
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, many rich "real" people give back some of their riches when they finally understand that all that excessive wealth means little to them when they approach the end of life. Many never understand that excessive amounts of money are pretty much meaningless to life. However this is all they have at this point that they believe is valuable. It is a security blanket. It is all they have that makes them believe they are better than anyone else.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>Why is redistributing the wealth upwards good for the country?
Wrong question.

You seem to have one of those Scarcity Mentalities that Stephen Covey describes in his best-selling book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People:

"Most people are deeply scripted in what I call the Scarcity Mentality. They see life as having only so much, as though there were only one pie out there. And if someone were to get a big piece of the pie, it would mean less for everybody else."

"The Scarcity Mentality is the zero-sum paradigm of life. People with a Scarcity Mentality have a very difficult time sharing recognition and credit, power or profit even with those who help in the production. The also have a a very hard time being genuinely happy for the success of other people."

"The Abundance Mentality, on the other hand, flows out of a deep inner sense of personal worth and security. It is the paradigm that there is plenty out there and enough to spare for everybody. It results in sharing of prestige, of recognition, of profits, of decision making. It opens possibilities, options, alternatives, and creativity."

Why are you so obsessed with wealth re-distribution, when it's wealth CREATION that's of far greater import for everyone in the society?

Free yourself, man.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 8 min Morris 10,344
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 33 min YANKEES 4 LIFE 307,472
Fox is going down (Dec '09) 50 min - -SPOONER- - 5,463
The Obama Epic FAIL BLOG (Feb '13) 50 min Opinion 559
USA and ISIS in Iraq 3 hr Opinion 49
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr Pearl Jam 305,455
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 4 hr Doug77 9,886
•••

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 ]
•••