We should apply Global Warming arguments to Government Debt

[Mormolyce]

A reasonable person would say the environment is in trouble and we need to cut production of greenhouse gases. A reasonable person would also say government is CLEARLY out of control, its way too big, and we need to cut back to a more limited government to get the second chart fixed as well. On a scale from little to no government to huge government, we definitely need to move the slider several clicks away from big government.

Sounds good to me. Though I'd want to see (a) what specifically we're planning to do re: greenhouse emissions and (b) what specifically we're talking about cutting from government spending.

[Underverse]

The CO2 Emissions have skyrocketed, while the temperatures haven't.

There's a delay between CO2 levels and temperature. It's hard to see on that graph, because it spans almost half a million years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10915.html

(Nature, 2012)


OT: Our spending isn't really too high. It's more that we're spending in the wrong ways. I would like to see cuts to certain areas, and then funding to other areas (what immediately comes to mind is non-research military into basic science).

[goobernoob]

I've a sneaking suspicion that there's a lot of sarcasm in the OP since Grummgug's the guy that's always going on about how global warming is disproven or whatever because of solar overtaking fossil fuels in a decade or two.

ok, I was a bit harsh with my reply, I'm a lil grumpy today. we do have to do something about our debt and I agree with cutting the military some but there isn't enough there that we can cut without risking global security (namely the navy and airforce which secure international shipping routes and make attacking us or any of our allies suicide) and I find it annoying that folks reply to a graph of government spending by saying we need to raise taxes, congress has a habit of spending whatever they get + some so giving them more money seems counterproductive to me.

[Rajadog20]

There's a delay between CO2 levels and temperature. It's hard to see on that graph, because it spans almost half a million years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10915.html

(Nature, 2012)


OT: Our spending isn't really too high. It's more that we're spending in the wrong ways. I would like to see cuts to certain areas, and then funding to other areas (what immediately comes to mind is non-research military into basic science).

Can you link the graph, its not letting me view them.

[Tierbook]

There's a delay between CO2 levels and temperature. It's hard to see on that graph, because it spans almost half a million years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10915.html

(Nature, 2012)


OT: Our spending isn't really too high. It's more that we're spending in the wrong ways. I would like to see cuts to certain areas, and then funding to other areas (what immediately comes to mind is non-research military into basic science).

meh any kind of research can be made to benefit the military the best way to go about it is to claim its for the military and sell it out to companies

[Underverse]

Can you link the graph, its not letting me view them.

Not a graph, a paper

nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/abs/nature10915.html

[Twotonsteak]

Oki, start by cutting military spending, as well as cutting the Bush tax cuts. There you go, since the US government spending is already flattening out (unlike the temperature graph), it's been fixed.


You're welcome.

"The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

The problem is that any spending Obama commits to happens NOW. However most of the cuts he brags about occur over multiple years (often ten years or more). So when people say that "spending is under control" they are merely playing games with the numbers.

Although this should be common sense when you realize that Obama has raised the debt ceiling seven times with number eight coming up in a a couple of weeks. I mean if the debt is stabilizing then why do we need to continually raise the ceiling?

Combine that with Nancy Pelosi's claim, "the cupboard is bare. There’s no more cuts to make." And of course Obama's refusal to negotiate...about anything...involving the debt ceiling.

EDIT:

G.W. Bush raised the debt ceiling seven times. Obama openly opposed at least one of those. Obama also called the four trillion in debt Bush added "unpatriotic" and "irresponsible." Since then Obama has added six trillion to the national debt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

[Tierbook]

that cbs projection assumes the, at the time, current levels of spending, that has changed

[Sunseeker]

Alright, lets raise taxes.

[Twotonsteak]

that cbs projection assumes the, at the time, current levels of spending, that has changed

Some minor cuts have been made. However the cost of implementing the Affordable Care Act has gone up dramatically. And we don't have an exact number on the cost of running the program since the full law, thanks to any number of delays and exemptions Obama set-up, won't take effect until 2015 or later.

All of which ignores the basic fact that we are still spending more than we bring in. (Remember the constant raising of the debt ceiling?)

Now I'll be fair and admit that military spending needs to be cut dramatically. However we also need to rework almost all of the entitlement programs. Most of them suffer from waist and fraud. And Social Security is unsustainable in it's current form. I mean, maybe you like it, but I have issues with paying in to a program that won't be there when I retire.

[LilSaihah]

Alright, lets raise taxes.

Congress/Obama working on that tax code/legal reform yet? I can't remember if obama was rocking that during the election or just the mittster.

[goobernoob]

Alright, lets raise taxes.

so they can spend all of the increased revenue + some (again) and keep the graph going up?

[Milchshake]

Start by killing corporate welfare, thats two birds with one stone.

[getupkid55]

Posts 140 years of data the ends 15 years ago, says its cut and dry.

Gotta love global warming 'science.'

[ishootblanks]

Isn't it interesting that every other country always wants us to cut our military spending?

You got something planned for us we don't know about yet UK? hmmmm?

they never seem to remember that it's because of our military spending that their national language is not German..

otherwise this is a pretty funny thread.. all the liberals are terrified to respond because they can clearly see the point the OP is making.. and it's significantly easier to map out the consequences of overspending because the results are easy to recreate..

and think the exact same approach should be taken with both examples.. make the best possible cuts to spending to first eliminate waste and redundant programs.. then focus on re-training people to take care of themselves and provide their own personal safety nets that best meet the needs of their family and community..

as to climate change since we do not yet understand what causes it.. or even how big if any impact humans have on it.. so instead of just diving blindly into banning all Carbon Dioxide output which would decimate the world economy.. we should try to find ways to efficiently limit pollutants as we are able to identify them..

we have a huge tendency to act without thinking.. remember CFCs? which were supposedly responsible for the holes in the Ozone layer? yeah.. the scientist who created it said that it would ionize in the upper atmosphere and become harmless.. well!! 20 years after CFC's were banned.. and the Ozone layer continued to expand and contract within the norm we discovered that CFC's did indeed ionize and dissipate harmlessly in the upper atmosphere..

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, lets raise taxes.

the democrat response to everything...

[Cthulhu 2020]

as to climate change since we do not yet understand what causes it.. or even how big if any impact humans have on it.. so instead of just diving blindly into banning all Carbon Dioxide output which would decimate the world economy.. we should try to find ways to efficiently limit pollutants as we are able to identify them..

It's about as proven as it can get that it's human driven. That you don't "believe" it's been proven doesn't change that it has been. If you'd like to point out where every climate scientist in the world who has affirmed AGCC is wrong (Considering every NIPCC and denier "study" has been debunked) you're welcome to do so, but the burden of proof lies on the deniers now as AGCC has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

- - - Updated - - -

the democrat response to everything...

So let's cut spending... say our overinflated military budget?

Oh wait, the UK is planning to attack us if we do that!

[Sunseeker]

so they can spend all of the increased revenue + some (again) and keep the graph going up?

The graph is a % of the budget. It can't keep going up if income increases faster than spending.

- - - Updated - - -

the democrat response to everything...

You can't cut spending and cut taxes.

[Masark]

You can't cut spending and cut taxes.

Sure you can. Just chant "Deficits don't matter" until a different party is running the government.

[Underverse]

we have a huge tendency to act without thinking.. remember CFCs? which were supposedly responsible for the holes in the Ozone layer? yeah.. the scientist who created it said that it would ionize in the upper atmosphere and become harmless.. well!! 20 years after CFC's were banned.. and the Ozone layer continued to expand and contract within the norm we discovered that CFC's did indeed ionize and dissipate harmlessly in the upper atmosphere..

Well this is simply false. The evidence still suggests that CFCs harm the ozone.

Edit: To clarify, it's the decomposition of these substances that leads to harm.

[ishootblanks]

It's about as proven as it can get that it's human driven. That you don't "believe" it's been proven doesn't change that it has been. If you'd like to point out where every climate scientist in the world who has affirmed AGCC is wrong (Considering every NIPCC and denier "study" has been debunked) you're welcome to do so, but the burden of proof lies on the deniers now as AGCC has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

- - - Updated - - -



So let's cut spending... say our overinflated military budget?

Oh wait, the UK is planning to attack us if we do that!

hey look! another straw man!!

I'm absolutely in favor to cutting our military wherever possible without weakening it.. I would be in favor of weakening it too if the rest of the world would pick up the slack

- - - Updated - - -

Well this is simply false. The evidence still suggests that CFCs harm the ozone.

Edit: To clarify, it's the decomposition of these substances that leads to harm.

and even that's just an assumption..