It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet
page: 28share:
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
How can you say it any better than that?
Muh Global Warming was nothing but a conspiracy to implement the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that this planet has ever seen. President Trump broke all the rules and pulled out of the useless Paris Agreement. MAGA
From the ICCP itself:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
www.ipcc.ch...
Actually the tax bill that was just passed is one of the greatest transfers of wealth from poor to rich in our lifetimes. The rest of your post doesn’t warrant a reply.
Cold snap in the Middle and Eastern U.S....yet way above average temperatures present out west all the up to Alaska.
It was a tax cut. Your logic is flawed.
originally posted by: ApisM
originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
How can you say it any better than that?
Muh Global Warming was nothing but a conspiracy to implement the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that this planet has ever seen. President Trump broke all the rules and pulled out of the useless Paris Agreement. MAGA
From the ICCP itself:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
www.ipcc.ch...
Actually the tax bill that was just passed is one of the greatest transfers of wealth from poor to rich in our lifetimes. The rest of your post doesn’t warrant a reply.
a reply to: Peeple
That is a self-defeating argument. There is no species of plant or animal that does not affect its environment in some way. None. The only way to not affect the environment is to not exist. As has been pointed out, the stated problem with Global warming is that we will not exist, or at least not as well as we do now.
Let us assume both are correct for the sake of argument. We therefore have a choice: kill ourselves off now, or take a chance on our activities killing ourselves off later. I'll take the latter any day.
TheRedneck
But we inevitably interfer. You can't have any footprint at zero.
That is a self-defeating argument. There is no species of plant or animal that does not affect its environment in some way. None. The only way to not affect the environment is to not exist. As has been pointed out, the stated problem with Global warming is that we will not exist, or at least not as well as we do now.
Let us assume both are correct for the sake of argument. We therefore have a choice: kill ourselves off now, or take a chance on our activities killing ourselves off later. I'll take the latter any day.
TheRedneck
a reply to: ApisM
So, by your logic, if paying less in taxes transfers wealth to the rich, all one who is poor has to do to transfer wealth to themselves is pay more in taxes?
I hope you do not work in the financial industry...
TheRedneck
Actually the tax bill that was just passed is one of the greatest transfers of wealth from poor to rich in our lifetimes.
So, by your logic, if paying less in taxes transfers wealth to the rich, all one who is poor has to do to transfer wealth to themselves is pay more in taxes?
I hope you do not work in the financial industry...
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
No, that is not inferred by his statement at all.
It's REAL simple. If a company had been paying $500 million to the treasury in taxes, and that tax money paid for programs used by the poor, such as SNAP and schools, and a million other things, when the company now has to pay only $300 million to the treasury, the treasury is out $200 million, unless there is "trickle down business growth spurred." Trickle down has not worked, ever, ask Kansas, and yet they keep going back to it.
Because it doesn't work, the treasury will have $200 million less, the deficit sky rockets (bc companies all over pay less) this causes Republicans to call to cut programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, etc that means the poor pay money out of their pocket to cover the loss.
You can say; "But they are not entitled to SNAP and Medicaid and such anyway. Fine. You want to live in a country where granny dies alone for lack of care, a poor kid with cancer can't get care, and the person who has too little money b/c Walmart only pays him $8/hour goes hungry and lives in shacks. If you're fine with a nation like that, then that's who you are and I find that to be indefensible as a human, never mind as a Christian. Pope Francis has screamed out against such thinking as in direct opposition to Jesus's message, and he is right.
However, economists are in agreement that stimulating the economy by forcing higher taxes on the rich, and granting more money to the very poor, both stimulates the economy (b/c the poor spend it immediately on things they NEED), and that money eventually helps the rich, too, by stabilizing the nation.
The nation cannot be stable if people are too rich, while many are too poor, and a huge gap in between. It cant survive economically or politically. Thus the saying that higher taxes to pay for programs "As the price you pay for being rich, free and alive, all at the same time." It's just a truism.
No, that is not inferred by his statement at all.
It's REAL simple. If a company had been paying $500 million to the treasury in taxes, and that tax money paid for programs used by the poor, such as SNAP and schools, and a million other things, when the company now has to pay only $300 million to the treasury, the treasury is out $200 million, unless there is "trickle down business growth spurred." Trickle down has not worked, ever, ask Kansas, and yet they keep going back to it.
Because it doesn't work, the treasury will have $200 million less, the deficit sky rockets (bc companies all over pay less) this causes Republicans to call to cut programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, etc that means the poor pay money out of their pocket to cover the loss.
You can say; "But they are not entitled to SNAP and Medicaid and such anyway. Fine. You want to live in a country where granny dies alone for lack of care, a poor kid with cancer can't get care, and the person who has too little money b/c Walmart only pays him $8/hour goes hungry and lives in shacks. If you're fine with a nation like that, then that's who you are and I find that to be indefensible as a human, never mind as a Christian. Pope Francis has screamed out against such thinking as in direct opposition to Jesus's message, and he is right.
However, economists are in agreement that stimulating the economy by forcing higher taxes on the rich, and granting more money to the very poor, both stimulates the economy (b/c the poor spend it immediately on things they NEED), and that money eventually helps the rich, too, by stabilizing the nation.
The nation cannot be stable if people are too rich, while many are too poor, and a huge gap in between. It cant survive economically or politically. Thus the saying that higher taxes to pay for programs "As the price you pay for being rich, free and alive, all at the same time." It's just a truism.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Peeple
Let us assume both are correct for the sake of argument. We therefore have a choice: kill ourselves off now, or take a chance on our activities killing ourselves off later. I'll take the latter any day.
Well, if it gets warmer ... I'll rejoice, as the heating bill is going to become less. However, if I start reducing some actions and then hell freezes over ...
I'll take a Pascal's wager on this, as species, we'll overcome any "problem" in the future ... let's head on, and send those "religious" freaks home to "camel-hump" country.
a reply to: Scrubdog
I need to just write up a standard response to this and start pasting it (or maybe just a link to save space). Trickle down has always worked if implemented correctly. Mature companies will not trickle down, because they are mature and have no room for growth, but smaller companies will always trickle down because their entire purpose for existence is to grow and increase profits. Under our present system of government there is no legal way to differentiate between the two, so the mature companies will get breaks too, which will go to shareholders, who will at least pay tax on it, in order for the smaller companies to get tax breaks to trickle down.
And people all get an increase in their standard deduction as well as a decrease in their tax rates, so they can trickle up by buying more. That's the point.
People keep accusing me of this... I am all for a better safety net for the poor. Is my computer malfunctioning? I see those statements on my screen...
No, I cannot say that. Speak for yourself.
That is Keynesian Economics. I studied it in school. It works well across a certain range of economic conditions, and fails miserably elsewhere. We happen to be well into the elsewhere category right now.
The failure is that Keynes theorized that it was in the government's best interests to tightly control the economy. In an expanding economy, the proper method to slow it is to increase taxation directly to draw money out of the market. In a slowing economy, the most efficient method of stimulating it is to give that money to the poor, because they will have a higher rate of spending compared to saving. Those are true as long as taxation remains within certain boundaries. What it does not address is that over time all economies will naturally undergo periods of growth and decay. With time, the end result of Keynesian Economics is that taxation must approach 100% and entitlements must also approach 100%... that is the definition of communism.
We know from history that communism has never worked in any economy larger than a household. Human greed and human thirst for power inevitably leads to a ruling class which collects and redistributes the taxes. Since this ruling class has full economic control over who eats and who does not, they are essentially dictatorships in disguise, which history shows always end up under the control of despots.
Any economists that want to use Keynesian Economics at this point are either absolute idiotic fools without two functioning neurons to rub together, or despots themselves looking for a chance to rise to power. You can tell them I said that if you see them; I will tell them that to their face if I see them.
No, it's a perversion of a truism. We have been using Keynesian theory for the past few decades. It has made things worse. Time for a change.
TheRedneck
It's REAL simple. If a company had been paying $500 million to the treasury in taxes, and that tax money paid for programs used by the poor, such as SNAP and schools, and a million other things, when the company now has to pay only $300 million to the treasury, the treasury is out $200 million, unless there is "trickle down business growth spurred." Trickle down has not worked, ever, ask Kansas, and yet they keep going back to it.
I need to just write up a standard response to this and start pasting it (or maybe just a link to save space). Trickle down has always worked if implemented correctly. Mature companies will not trickle down, because they are mature and have no room for growth, but smaller companies will always trickle down because their entire purpose for existence is to grow and increase profits. Under our present system of government there is no legal way to differentiate between the two, so the mature companies will get breaks too, which will go to shareholders, who will at least pay tax on it, in order for the smaller companies to get tax breaks to trickle down.
And people all get an increase in their standard deduction as well as a decrease in their tax rates, so they can trickle up by buying more. That's the point.
You can say; "But they are not entitled to SNAP and Medicaid and such anyway.
People keep accusing me of this... I am all for a better safety net for the poor. Is my computer malfunctioning? I see those statements on my screen...
No, I cannot say that. Speak for yourself.
However, economists are in agreement that stimulating the economy by forcing higher taxes on the rich, and granting more money to the very poor, both stimulates the economy (b/c the poor spend it immediately on things they NEED), and that money eventually helps the rich, too, by stabilizing the nation.
That is Keynesian Economics. I studied it in school. It works well across a certain range of economic conditions, and fails miserably elsewhere. We happen to be well into the elsewhere category right now.
The failure is that Keynes theorized that it was in the government's best interests to tightly control the economy. In an expanding economy, the proper method to slow it is to increase taxation directly to draw money out of the market. In a slowing economy, the most efficient method of stimulating it is to give that money to the poor, because they will have a higher rate of spending compared to saving. Those are true as long as taxation remains within certain boundaries. What it does not address is that over time all economies will naturally undergo periods of growth and decay. With time, the end result of Keynesian Economics is that taxation must approach 100% and entitlements must also approach 100%... that is the definition of communism.
We know from history that communism has never worked in any economy larger than a household. Human greed and human thirst for power inevitably leads to a ruling class which collects and redistributes the taxes. Since this ruling class has full economic control over who eats and who does not, they are essentially dictatorships in disguise, which history shows always end up under the control of despots.
Any economists that want to use Keynesian Economics at this point are either absolute idiotic fools without two functioning neurons to rub together, or despots themselves looking for a chance to rise to power. You can tell them I said that if you see them; I will tell them that to their face if I see them.
The nation cannot be stable if people are too rich, while many are too poor, and a huge gap in between. It cant survive economically or politically. Thus the saying that higher taxes to pay for programs "As the price you pay for being rich, free and alive, all at the same time." It's just a truism.
No, it's a perversion of a truism. We have been using Keynesian theory for the past few decades. It has made things worse. Time for a change.
TheRedneck
a reply to: bjarneorn
And that will cause a decrease in fuel prices, too. Also, since by definition the growing seasons will increase, there will be more food available and those prices will decrease. Historically, cold weather reduces the population while warmer weather increases a population.
Of course, now we have these evil little carbon dioxide molecules floating around getting in the way of all that...
TheRedneck
Well, if it gets warmer ... I'll rejoice, as the heating bill is going to become less.
And that will cause a decrease in fuel prices, too. Also, since by definition the growing seasons will increase, there will be more food available and those prices will decrease. Historically, cold weather reduces the population while warmer weather increases a population.
Of course, now we have these evil little carbon dioxide molecules floating around getting in the way of all that...
TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck
Holy crap! Dress up warm, it's getting so cold around here that Elizabeth Warren has already claimed to be part Eskimo!
Holy crap! Dress up warm, it's getting so cold around here that Elizabeth Warren has already claimed to be part Eskimo!
edit on 31-12-2017 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)
a reply to: TheRedneck
Please first note, I didn't say that you are one who doesn't believe in some kind of safety net. I said you CAN, but never said you surely did, it was not an accusation, it was a point made that some people say that. I would not be fair to say with conviction that is what you believe. Please believe me on that. I take that seriously. I'd never do it.
As for your answers, "trickle down has always worked when done properly." I guess it has rarely to never been done properly. I guess you can say it has worked if he goal is to maximize the wealth of the wealthy, bc that has sure been the case. That is why over the last 40 years the percentage base wealth growth has split definitively when it used to be all tied together. www.google.com... h+gap+last+100+years&gs_l=img.3...124.15728.0.16449.38.16.0.17.0.0.776.2132.5-2j1.3.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..18.2.1354...0.0.jh4TpE0ihoU#imgrc=h9mi8MZq6 DIKcM:
I grant you, trickle down is not the only factor. Destroying unions, not raising the minimum wage, trying CEO pay to share value, all contribute to the economic inequality we now see.
Your argument that we've had Kensyian economics for the last 40 years and time for a change is just flat wrong. We've had 40 years of pressure to lower taxes and destroy the New Deal. When the U.S. exploded as a world power, richer than any nation by far, building the middle class, it was in the 50s-70s, the G.I. bill, the massive infrastructure projects, the better wages, all built the middle class while the rich still were plenty rich. We had tax rates above 50% for the wealthiest in order to fund these projects, the economy grew and grew.
Kansas? Did they not apply trickle down appropriately? Compare Kansas to Minnesota just over the last 8 years and get back to me on what works. Did California explode in growth under Arnold, or did it take Gov. Brown? These are very easy questions.
Please first note, I didn't say that you are one who doesn't believe in some kind of safety net. I said you CAN, but never said you surely did, it was not an accusation, it was a point made that some people say that. I would not be fair to say with conviction that is what you believe. Please believe me on that. I take that seriously. I'd never do it.
As for your answers, "trickle down has always worked when done properly." I guess it has rarely to never been done properly. I guess you can say it has worked if he goal is to maximize the wealth of the wealthy, bc that has sure been the case. That is why over the last 40 years the percentage base wealth growth has split definitively when it used to be all tied together. www.google.com... h+gap+last+100+years&gs_l=img.3...124.15728.0.16449.38.16.0.17.0.0.776.2132.5-2j1.3.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..18.2.1354...0.0.jh4TpE0ihoU#imgrc=h9mi8MZq6 DIKcM:
I grant you, trickle down is not the only factor. Destroying unions, not raising the minimum wage, trying CEO pay to share value, all contribute to the economic inequality we now see.
Your argument that we've had Kensyian economics for the last 40 years and time for a change is just flat wrong. We've had 40 years of pressure to lower taxes and destroy the New Deal. When the U.S. exploded as a world power, richer than any nation by far, building the middle class, it was in the 50s-70s, the G.I. bill, the massive infrastructure projects, the better wages, all built the middle class while the rich still were plenty rich. We had tax rates above 50% for the wealthiest in order to fund these projects, the economy grew and grew.
Kansas? Did they not apply trickle down appropriately? Compare Kansas to Minnesota just over the last 8 years and get back to me on what works. Did California explode in growth under Arnold, or did it take Gov. Brown? These are very easy questions.
a reply to: TheRedneck
What about the growing season that disappears, because of drought and temps that are too high? As we have seen in many areas?
There are absolutely some things that will benefit from a man-made warming planet. Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries will all explode in growth, they have water, and soon more land open to ag,
But more areas will be too hot and dry to grow crops, it will be too expensive. And it will be harder to move from place to place if the oceans continue to rise, and stronger storms continue to destroy coastlines. Ask New Orleans if they benefited.
What about the growing season that disappears, because of drought and temps that are too high? As we have seen in many areas?
There are absolutely some things that will benefit from a man-made warming planet. Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries will all explode in growth, they have water, and soon more land open to ag,
But more areas will be too hot and dry to grow crops, it will be too expensive. And it will be harder to move from place to place if the oceans continue to rise, and stronger storms continue to destroy coastlines. Ask New Orleans if they benefited.
Algore: "DAMN EARTH! Why can't you just work with me a little bit here???? We could be RICH(er)!!!"
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: bjarneorn
Of course, now we have these evil little carbon dioxide molecules floating around getting in the way of all that...
TheRedneck
But how many people know, that those evil little carbon dioxie molecules are "US" breething ...
Happy New Year, mihi amicas ... novus annus
originally posted by: bjarneorn
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: bjarneorn
Of course, now we have these evil little carbon dioxide molecules floating around getting in the way of all that...
TheRedneck
But how many people know, that those evil little carbon dioxie molecules are "US" breething ...
Happy New Year, mihi amicas ... novus annus
Airborne fertilizer, a breath of life for every plant on the planet.
C02 starvation would be a scary situation, 800 ppm means global greening, burn baby burn.
new topics
-
Joe Biden and Donald Trump are both traitors
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago -
I'm new here. Avid conspiracy fan.
Introductions: 1 hours ago -
Denmark's Notre-Dame moment - 17th Century Borsen goes up in Flames
Mainstream News: 2 hours ago -
We need less laws in the UK not more
General Chit Chat: 5 hours ago -
The Baloney aka BS Detection Kit
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago -
Suspected Iranian agent working for Pentagon while U.S. coordinated defense of Israel
US Political Madness: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Suspected Iranian agent working for Pentagon while U.S. coordinated defense of Israel
US Political Madness: 10 hours ago, 15 flags -
USO 10 miles west of caladesi island, Clearwater beach Florida
Aliens and UFOs: 17 hours ago, 9 flags -
The Baloney aka BS Detection Kit
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago, 6 flags -
We need less laws in the UK not more
General Chit Chat: 5 hours ago, 4 flags -
Denmark's Notre-Dame moment - 17th Century Borsen goes up in Flames
Mainstream News: 2 hours ago, 4 flags -
How does my computer know
Education and Media: 13 hours ago, 3 flags -
I'm new here. Avid conspiracy fan.
Introductions: 1 hours ago, 1 flags -
Joe Biden and Donald Trump are both traitors
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 215 • : Annee -
Girl 11, Barred From Starting a Faith Club but Classmates are Allowed Pride Group
Education and Media • 351 • : FlyersFan -
Joe Biden and Donald Trump are both traitors
US Political Madness • 12 • : andy06shake -
Anti-Israel Protesters in CHICAGO Chant 'Death to Israel and 'Death to America'
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 42 • : marg6043 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 487 • : fringeofthefringe -
I'm new here. Avid conspiracy fan.
Introductions • 3 • : TheDiscoKing -
The Reality of the Laser
Military Projects • 28 • : confuzedcitizen -
It has begun... Iran begins attack on Israel, launches tons of drones towards the country
World War Three • 714 • : ImagoDei -
Canadian Police Urge Citizens To Avoid Conflict With Armed Robbers By Leaving Keys At Front Door
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 69 • : MrGashler -
Suspected Iranian agent working for Pentagon while U.S. coordinated defense of Israel
US Political Madness • 23 • : Consvoli