Rand Paul's Budget

[El Guapo 8]

I am curious SS, what do the liberals and democrats stand for, because every time some brings up something the democrats have done, you say that is not what the constituents believe in.

[brvheart 1,752]

I am curious SS, what do the liberals and democrats stand for, because every time some brings up something the democrats have done, you say that is not what the constituents believe in.

For starters, they believe that $4 billion dollars/year is nothing.

[BaseJester 1]

You should get out more. Environmentalists and Liberals think subsidizing ethanol is spectacularly stupid and immoral and have for a long time now. It's the corrupt midwest politicians and lobbyists that are keeping it going.

So you created the system that became the ethanol subsidies, and now want to wash your hands after children starved because of it.Yea...you guys should be allowed to run things...

I think you should take a brief time-out from political finger-pointing and allow yourselves to agree on something.

[El Guapo 8]

For starters, they believe that $4 billion dollars/year is nothing.

Ya, I was not even going to address that.

[SilentSnow 1]

So you created the system that became the ethanol subsidies, and now want to wash your hands after children starved because of it.Yea...you guys should be allowed to run things...

Unlike conservatives, liberals adjust their beliefs when the facts change. First of all, I doubt the corn subsidies were as much of a liberal idea as you claim. For example, in the 2005 bill that expanded them, 20 of the 26 No votes were from democrats. I don't remember how the MTBE rules got implemented. What I do know is that environmentalists were the first ones to oppose them when it became clear that they weren't working. Now, the attempt to repeal the corn subsidies has more Democrat than Republican support, mainly opposed by corrupt midwest politicians.

[SilentSnow 1]

For starters, they believe that $4 billion dollars/year is nothing.

Compared to the potential future damage from global warming, that is essentially nothing.

[SilentSnow 1]

I am curious SS, what do the liberals and democrats stand for, because every time some brings up something the democrats have done, you say that is not what the constituents believe in.

I can see why you might be confused, since the liberal media is a complete myth. Most of what conservatives "know" about liberals is conservative propaganda. As I've already explained, Obama has gone against liberal principles on nearly every major issue. You guys seem completely unable to grasp the fact that liberals are virtually disenfranchised in this country and conservatives have nearly complete control over the government. That is how a conservative who lost the popular election was able to enact nearly everything he wanted, while a "liberal" who had a massive electoral victory achieved almost zero liberal goals. Liberals believe in freedom, truth and justice. Of course there is no such thing as generic freedom. There are only freedoms to do X and freedom from X. These freedoms often compete against each other and must be rationally balanced. This subject can be confusing for conservatives since they wildly overrate market capitalism's ability to produce just outcomes and increase freedom. Truth is self explanatory. Generally liberals accept the expert consensus of relevant experts in a field. Of course some fields have no generally recognized experts- economics, business, politics, philosophy, etc. They try to continually adjust their beliefs to fit updated facts, rather than rationalize simplistic false beliefs. Justice is justice for all, not just what is best for your particular socioeconomic class. This concept of justice and ethics extends to all sentient beings, which means that animals and future generations must be part of a rational ethical system. And no, fetuses are not sentient beings. I don't agree with "liberals" on everything, but on most issues their position is more rational. If you want I could tell you my position on a particular issue and explain to what extent it agrees/disagrees with what I would guess a typical liberal would think. I was more moderate a few years ago. Then I started fact checking. It turns out that most major claims liberals make are supported by facts, while conservatives make far more factual errors. Also, this is more subjective, but conservative reasoning seems to be far more illogical and simplistic.

[Balloon guy 158]

Unlike conservatives, liberals adjust their beliefs when the facts change.

If you are referring to Obama changing his plans to close Gitmo, outlaw torture and rendition, ending the Patriot Act and expanding the war on terror..then yes, once true facts replace political rhetoric, even a liberal like Obama agreed that Bush was right on most things.If you are talking about liberal government programs...than you are so wrong that you are clearly reading your propaganda and not looking at reality.

[solderz 0]

I can see why you might be confused, since the liberal media is a complete myth. Most of what conservatives "know" about liberals is conservative propaganda. As I've already explained, Obama has gone against liberal principles on nearly every major issue. You guys seem completely unable to grasp the fact that liberals are virtually disenfranchised in this country and conservatives have nearly complete control over the government. That is how a conservative who lost the popular election was able to enact nearly everything he wanted, while a "liberal" who had a massive electoral victory achieved almost zero liberal goals. Liberals believe in freedom, truth and justice. Of course there is no such thing as generic freedom. There are only freedoms to do X and freedom from X. These freedoms often compete against each other and must be rationally balanced. This subject can be confusing for conservatives since they wildly overrate market capitalism's ability to produce just outcomes and increase freedom. Truth is self explanatory. Generally liberals accept the expert consensus of relevant experts in a field. Of course some fields have no generally recognized experts- economics, business, politics, philosophy, etc. They try to continually adjust their beliefs to fit updated facts, rather than rationalize simplistic false beliefs. Justice is justice for all, not just what is best for your particular socioeconomic class. This concept of justice and ethics extends to all sentient beings, which means that animals and future generations must be part of a rational ethical system. And no, fetuses are not sentient beings. I don't agree with "liberals" on everything, but on most issues their position is more rational. If you want I could tell you my position on a particular issue and explain to what extent it agrees/disagrees with what I would guess a typical liberal would think. I was more moderate a few years ago. Then I started fact checking. It turns out that most major claims liberals make are supported by facts, while conservatives make far more factual errors. Also, this is more subjective, but conservative reasoning seems to be far more illogical and simplistic.

You act like there is a group of people getting together every week to discuss what they as liberals will believe in. There is no great consensus among people who consider themselves to be liberal about politics. Some people are considered liberal because they believe in change from the status quo. The reason environmentalists and other lunatics are considered liberal is because they believe in changing the law to achieve their desired outcome. So please stop preaching for people that are liberal, because such a group does not exist. People with liberal leanings have a wide range of beliefs, and very rarely do they actually coincide. In my opinion, if your not liberal now (meaning wanting some change in government) you are insane. The one thing I think we can all agree on is the status quo is not working. Change is completely necessary. Just because the media and politicians of the last decade have tried to change the definitions of the words conservative and liberal, doesn't actually mean they have changed. This kind of polarization where none exists is just silly.

[CindyLou 11]

Liberals believe in freedom, truth and justice.

[mrdannyg 274]

If you are referring to Obama changing his plans to close Gitmo, outlaw torture and rendition, ending the Patriot Act and expanding the war on terror..then yes, once true facts replace political rhetoric, even a liberal like Obama agreed that Bush was right on most things.If you are talking about liberal government programs...than you are so wrong that you are clearly reading your propaganda and not looking at reality.

You act like there is a group of people getting together every week to discuss what they as liberals will believe in. There is no great consensus among people who consider themselves to be liberal about politics. Some people are considered liberal because they believe in change from the status quo. The reason environmentalists and other lunatics are considered liberal is because they believe in changing the law to achieve their desired outcome. So please stop preaching for people that are liberal, because such a group does not exist. People with liberal leanings have a wide range of beliefs, and very rarely do they actually coincide. In my opinion, if your not liberal now (meaning wanting some change in government) you are insane. The one thing I think we can all agree on is the status quo is not working. Change is completely necessary. Just because the media and politicians of the last decade have tried to change the definitions of the words conservative and liberal, doesn't actually mean they have changed. This kind of polarization where none exists is just silly.

Seriously guys - I, at best, half-skimmed that SS post. I'd put my comprehension of it around 15%. And even I read it (and the post that he was answering) more carefully than either of you.

[Balloon guy 158]

Seriously guys - I, at best, half-skimmed that SS post. I'd put my comprehension of it around 15%. And even I read it (and the post that he was answering) more carefully than either of you.

You're credibility wanes when you admit to actually reading an SS post.Next you'll be clicking his links....

[mrdannyg 274]

You're credibility wanes when you admit to actually reading an SS post.Next you'll be clicking his links....

I had credibility? Why?

[brvheart 1,752]

Compared to the potential future damage from global warming, that is essentially nothing.

Well since the "potential" future damage could be the complete destruction of the planet, then what's 100 trillion dollars? Maybe we should change the tax rates to 100%, have everyone live in special biodome things and control all of their choices. Every single choice that people have should be left to the government, because they know best and that's the most fair. Considering the "potential" future damage, I'm sure you will agree with me that this is our only real option.

[timwakefield 68]

This section implies that if 1 is true, then so are 2 and 3. That is false. 1 is true, though probably not the way you mean it. 2 and 3 are far from a scientific consensus, and stating them in the same paragraph is what opens up doors to 'deniers'.

I'm not sure I did suggest what you say I suggested. You may have overlooked my qualifier: "It's quite possible that..."But what I'm more interested in is your take on #1. I'm not trying to be argumentative and I don't mean to sound offended or defensive about your post (because I'm not), but I'm curious what exactly you mean by "not the way mean it." Can you elaborate?

[mrdannyg 274]

I'm not sure I did suggest what you say I suggested. You may have overlooked my qualifier: "It's quite possible that..."But what I'm more interested in is your take on #1. I'm not trying to be argumentative and I don't mean to sound offended or defensive about your post (because I'm not), but I'm curious what exactly you mean by "not the way i mean it." Can you elaborate?

You said (numbers are mine):"1) But essentially every reputable scientist in the world agrees that CO2 emissions caused by humans are almost certainly going to cause climate issues that we've never seen or studied before. 2) It's quite possible that, if CO2 emissions keep rising, the results will be not only noticed around the world, 3) but may be catastrophic."Re: the bold. On it's own, that is definitely true. However, what I think you suggest is that the issues are worse than any we've seen or studied before. I don't think you'll find a consensus in the scientific community on that, but both of us are making very vague points. I think it is a stretch to suggest that "CO2 emissions caused by humans are almost certainly going to cause climate issues that are worse than we've [n]ever seen," which I think is your clear implication.I didn't overlook your qualifiers, but they were irrelevant to your point. We're discussing the possibility. It's quite possible that space monsters destroy Norway tomorrow, but the link to the premise must be clear if I'm implying that is the result of some other actions.

[solderz 0]

Seriously guys - I, at best, half-skimmed that SS post. I'd put my comprehension of it around 15%. And even I read it (and the post that he was answering) more carefully than either of you.

And your point. Pointing at someone and saying your wrong is ****ing stupid unless you are 5 years old.

[mrdannyg 274]

And your point. Pointing at someone and saying your wrong is ****ing stupid unless you are 5 years old.

I agree! So is needless swearing and not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're". Just fix up those three things and you won't need to sit at the kiddie table.

[timwakefield 68]

You said (numbers are mine):"1) But essentially every reputable scientist in the world agrees that CO2 emissions caused by humans are almost certainly going to cause climate issues that we've never seen or studied before. 2) It's quite possible that, if CO2 emissions keep rising, the results will be not only noticed around the world, 3) but may be catastrophic."Re: the bold. On it's own, that is definitely true. However, what I think you suggest is that the issues are worse than any we've seen or studied before. I don't think you'll find a consensus in the scientific community on that, but both of us are making very vague points. I think it is a stretch to suggest that "CO2 emissions caused by humans are almost certainly going to cause climate issues that are worse than we've [n]ever seen," which I think is your clear implication.

I didn't mean to clearly imply that, or to imply it at all. Before there was any life on the earth, there were climate changes that were almost unimaginably dramatic. And even since then, there have been huge horrific climate changes caused by massive meteor collisions - so horrific that a similar disaster could wipe out 99% (or more) of humanity if it happened today. Natural ice ages and periods of hotness (or whatever) are also known to have occurred, and to have had drastic, catastrophic effects around the world.I think you read more into my wording than I meant to be read. By "We've never seen or studied before" I simply meant that the outcome is unknowable, as this is the first time in earth's history that humans are causing environmental changes. We cannot study it in Antarctic ice or in sedimentary layers, and we certainly cannot study what the outcome is unless we traveled to the future and came back. It's something that's happening for the first time ever, but I certainly didn't mean to imply that it will or could be more drastic than a natural ice age or meteor collision. It won't, and couldn't possibly do the amount of damage that a sizable and well-placed meteor could (and frankly, eventually will, unless we create and build some way to deflect them).

[hblask 1]

By "We've never seen or studied before" I simply meant that the outcome is unknowable, as this is the first time in earth's history that humans are causing environmental changes.

If this was the only claim the climate change club was making, there would be no controversy. Instead they are saying "humans are causing environmental changes and it will definitely lead to death and destruction and therefore we have to destroy the foundation of our economy to prevent that from happening."This latter claim is what people object to, not the one in your quote here.

[Balloon guy 158]

If this was the only claim the climate change club was making, there would be no controversy. Instead they are saying "humans are causing environmental changes and it will definitely lead to death and destruction in ten years and therefore we have to destroy the foundation of our economy to prevent that from happening."This latter claim is what people object to, not the one in your quote here.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I didn't mean to clearly imply that, or to imply it at all. Before there was any life on the earth, there were climate changes that were almost unimaginably dramatic. And even since then, there have been huge horrific climate changes caused by massive meteor collisions - so horrific that a similar disaster could wipe out 99% (or more) of humanity if it happened today. Natural ice ages and periods of hotness (or whatever) are also known to have occurred, and to have had drastic, catastrophic effects around the world.I think you read more into my wording than I meant to be read. By "We've never seen or studied before" I simply meant that the outcome is unknowable, as this is the first time in earth's history that humans are causing environmental changes. We cannot study it in Antarctic ice or in sedimentary layers, and we certainly cannot study what the outcome is unless we traveled to the future and came back. It's something that's happening for the first time ever, but I certainly didn't mean to imply that it will or could be more drastic than a natural ice age or meteor collision. It won't, and couldn't possibly do the amount of damage that a sizable and well-placed meteor could (and frankly, eventually will, unless we create and build some way to deflect them).

Meh to say we can't make knowledgeable predicitons based on prior trends and mathmatics is false. I mean, Hawkings mathematically predicted black holes years before there was any physical evidence period. And yeah, a meteor might take us out next week or in 20 years, or it might not come for 3000 years. That doesn't mean we should throw caution to the wind and ignore or at least try to investigate our impact on the planet. I'd like to see my grandkids not inherit a planet with the climate of some God forsaken place like Houston.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Meh to say we can't make knowledgeable predicitons based on prior trends and mathmatics is false. I mean, Hawkings mathematically predicted black holes years before there was any physical evidence period. And yeah, a meteor might take us out next week or in 20 years, or it might not come for 3000 years. That doesn't mean we should throw caution to the wind and ignore or at least try to investigate our impact on the planet. I'd like to see my grandkids not inherit a planet with the climate of some God forsaken place like Houston.

The same people that deny things like global warming also deny things like deforestation, yet we know that deforestation is wreaking havoc on our planet. You can view images sent from the space shuttle and actually see huge areas wiped out.

[hblask 1]

The same people that deny things like global warming also deny things like deforestation, yet we know that deforestation is wreaking havoc on our planet. You can view images sent from the space shuttle and actually see huge areas wiped out.

Again, the problem is the solutions recommended. In countries with secure property rights, on private land, forestation has *increased* for the last hundred years. In countries without strong property rights, deforestation is a problem. Yet the same people who are most vocal about caring about it are the ones who support policies that basically ensure tragedies of the commons like deforestation.

[brvheart 1,752]

The same people that deny things like global warming also deny things like deforestation, yet we know that deforestation is wreaking havoc on our planet. You can view images sent from the space shuttle and actually see huge areas wiped out.

Trees and ForestsWhy do leaves change color in the fall? Leaves contain pigments of various colors all through the year, but most of the year the yellows and oranges are masked by great amounts of green coloring from the abundance of chlorophyll contained in the leaves. In the fall, when the temperatures change and the length of daylight decreases, leaves stop their food-making process, and their chlorophyll, now unused, begins to break down. The green color disappears, and the yellows and oranges already present in the leaves become visible. At the same time, other chemical changes occur within the leaves which cause red pigments to develop.Are we running out of trees in the U.S.? No; in fact, there are more trees in the U.S. today than there were 70 years ago.What is the difference between a national forest and a national park? There is a big difference between the two. By law, national forests are working forests, set up by the U.S. Congress in the late 1800s to provide the nation with a continuous source of raw materials for wood products. At the same time, they are also used to provide wildlife habitat and for recreation. By contrast, national parks, like Yellowstone, Glacier, Rocky Mountain, and Yosemite, are intentionally set aside for non-commercial uses (such as recreation) and are not managed for resource production.How many trees are planted each year in the U.S.? Over 2 ½ billion trees are planted in the U.S. each year. The forest community plants over 1 ½ billion of these trees; that's an average of 4 million new trees planted every day by the forest community. Millions more trees regrow from seeds and sprout naturally.Are we cutting down more trees in the U.S. than we're planting? No. In fact, forest growth has exceeded harvests since the 1940s.What makes a forest "old growth"? Old growth is generally defined as trees 200 years of age or older. There are 13.2 million acres of old growth in the U.S. today. The vast majority of these trees will remain in their natural condition and will never be harvested due to legal and regulatory prohibitions on logging, road building, and even fire fighting.