Is it right to deny the American people jobs because of your religion?

[Magic Man]

What I expected was to start a thread with a catchy title that would get past one or two pages.

It worked.

It wasn't just the catchy title, though. You made a ridiculous claim in the OP that would make it hard for me to take any of it seriously. But yes, making ridiculous claims usually does work, if your only goal was to get a good number of responses.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It wasn't just the catchy title, though. You made a ridiculous claim in the OP that would make it hard for me to take any of it seriously. But yes, making ridiculous claims usually does work, if your only goal was to get a good number of responses.

But I did make good points. Are not carbon credits a form of forgiveness just like religions do? Carbon credits are like an offering to the green goddess.

Global warming is a belief not a fact, just like religion.

People who chain themselves to trees are exactly like religious fanatics.

People who pour billions of dollars into technologies that fail miserably resemble those who send in their prayer offerings. The only difference is, the green religion spends every one's tax money where the religious don't make you tithe 10% to their church.

How would you like it Matt, if we took 10% of your paycheck and gave it to a holiness church?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But I did make good points. Are not carbon credits a form of forgiveness just like religions do? Carbon credits are like an offering to the green goddess.

Global warming is a belief not a fact, just like religion.

People who chain themselves to trees are exactly like religious fanatics.

People who pour billions of dollars into technologies that fail miserably resemble those who send in their prayer offerings. The only difference is, the green religion spends every one's tax money where the religious don't make you tithe 10% to their church.

How would you like it Matt, if we took 10% of your paycheck and gave it to a holiness church?

I think your description fits military spending better than it does government funding of environmental programs.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think your description fits military spending better than it does government funding of environmental programs.

I know I am blowing smoke, but there is some degree of logic to what I am saying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know I am blowing smoke, but there is some degree of logic to what I am saying.

I think it's a strained analogy.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

But I did make good points. Are not carbon credits a form of forgiveness just like religions do? Carbon credits are like an offering to the green goddess. No.

Global warming is a belief not a fact, just like religion. Here is the crux of your misnomer. It is a belief in a well-proven hypothesis. Just like "I believe in gravity, evolution, and that the world is round.". These theories, along with global warming have the backing of many, many experiments and studies. God doesn't.

People who chain themselves to trees are exactly like religious fanatics. If I dash the sacrament cup from your hand because I think you're praying to "the wrong god", then your analogy would hold. But if I'm dashing aside your cup of cyanide kool-aid (even though you knowingly want to drink it)......

People who pour billions of dollars into technologies that fail miserably resemble those who send in their prayer offerings. The only difference is, the green religion spends every one's tax money where the religious don't make you tithe 10% to their church.

How would you like it Matt, if we took 10% of your paycheck and gave it to a holiness church? Sadly, green tech and jobs is neither 10% of our budget, or even close to 1%. And as long as your so called "holiness church" was founded on science , facts, and reason as the study of global warming, green technology, and the end-result of their long-term economic impact ARE. And we are still talking about 1% of my tax money.....then sure. Go for it! It is obvious that our country deperately needs the jolt to our infrastructure that was so gutted under the last 40 years of heedless/headless conservative "economics".

.......just calling a rose a rose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to go back to this...

People who pour billions of dollars into technologies that fail miserably resemble those who send in their prayer offerings. The only difference is, the green religion spends every one's tax money where the religious don't make you tithe 10% to their church.

What techologies? Which specific billion-dollar technologies failed miserably?

 

[Penumbra]

The US government has historically subsidized things that are (or are thought to be) important to the economic health of the US, most notably, the financial sector, tele-communications, agriculture, and oil and gas. It seems strange that foul is only called when subsidies are being spent on renewable energy. How is clean, renewable, domestic energy not important for the health of our country?

I do feel that the US government should strategically subsidize certain industries that are important for long-term national interest and success.

I do also feel, however, that some of this has turned out pretty poorly. I very much disagree with the US involvement in the financial industry, and it could be argued that agricultural subsidies have been a major contributor to obesity and health issues in the US, which ends up costing more money than the subsidies themselves (along with the obvious non-economic aspects).

I think that the federal government should subsidize research, and should help ensure that the free market takes into account the full cost of things (like environmental degradation), and otherwise try to hang back a bit. As it long as it helps ensure the fairer rules (rather than just putting off the long term costs of things), I think the government can play an important but largely indirect role.

Our country is broke. If and when we have a balanced budget that wants to subsidize green energy, I will be the first to get on board.

We have to quit spending money we don't have. Obama has spent twice as much as Bush each of the last 3 years and we keep borrowing a trillion a year from the Chinese.

This has to stop.

People who want to leave the next generation a better future had better think about this debt problem.

Lets use private investment money for a change.

The US household net worth is close to $60 trillion, and the national debt is around $15 trillion. And the US still owns most of its own debt. We're not broke; it's that money has been shifted around in suboptimal ways.

Congress can fix the majority of the national deficit by doing nothing and allowing the tax cuts from a decade ago to finally expire, and allowing medicare cuts and automatic cuts to take place. By doing just about anything, Congress will keep the deficit larger. Now, just letting everything expire isn't optimal either, but the point is, the problem is currently self-imposed on an ideological basis.

Trying to run a developed country with among the lowest tax rates in the developed world, and among the least progressive tax rates in recent US history, is like trying to run a marathon with a chain around one foot. It's a self-imposed and unnecessary limitation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do feel that the US government should strategically subsidize certain industries that are important for long-term national interest and success.
I do also feel, however, that some of this has turned out pretty poorly. I very much disagree with the US involvement in the financial industry, and it could be argued that agricultural subsidies have been a major contributor to obesity and health issues in the US, which ends up costing more money than the subsidies themselves (along with the obvious non-economic aspects).

I think that the federal government should subsidize research, and should help ensure that the free market takes into account the full cost of things (like environmental degradation), and otherwise try to hang back a bit. As it long as it helps ensure the fairer rules (rather than just putting off the long term costs of things), I think the government can play an important but largely indirect role.

Geeze! At times, it's like we share one brain!


Hmmm....that sounds worse than I intended.

 

[idea]

Is it right to deny the American people jobs because of your religion? .

I think in the private sector, anyone should be free to hire anyone they like - and everyone should be free to shop/support anyone they like too. If someone decides to be bigoted/sexist/whatever in their hiring practices - that's their own personal business/money, let them do what they will - you would think that people would eventually refuse to work there, buy there, and it would naturally flush itself out without the need for gov. regulations to watch over it.


As for the public sector - everything should be controlled by the people, not one person. If the majority of the American people don't support it, then the gov - by the people - should not support it either.

I've always thought, that for taxes, we should each be able to send our tax dollars to the programs of our choice - so say you owe the gov $10,000 - you write them a check, but then you should be able to say "I want $4,000 to go to military, $2,000 to go to schools/education, $2,000 to welfare programs, and $1,000 to highways/gov buildings, and $1,000 to national labs. - then add up where everyone sends their money to - if it is not funded, cut it.... let we the people decide where every penny of our own personal tax $ is spent.

 

[Panda]

Global warming is a belief not a fact, just like religion.

No it is an easily demonstrably fact not a belief. To argue otherwise is idiotic as we have lots of accurate data of global temperatures. An argument could be made the humans don't cause global warming but not that global warming isn't happening.

 

[Falvlun]

"Foul" is regularly called regarding various subsidies. But we have different callers & different industries. A particular problem with energy is that it's driven by fervor & fashion perhaps more than others. Solyndra is the poster bad boy for bone-headed squandering of resources.
Theoretically, I can support subsidizing strategic industries, but when practiced by politicians, things go awry most of the time. Put me in
charge of targeted subsidies, & America will become a paradise on Earth. Give it a try, eh? Nuthin to lose.

Our country is broke. If and when we have a balanced budget that wants to subsidize green energy, I will be the first to get on board.

We have to quit spending money we don't have. Obama has spent twice as much as Bush each of the last 3 years and we keep borrowing a trillion a year from the Chinese.

This has to stop.

People who want to leave the next generation a better future had better think about this debt problem.

Lets use private investment money for a change.

I do feel that the US government should strategically subsidize certain industries that are important for long-term national interest and success.

I do also feel, however, that some of this has turned out pretty poorly. I very much disagree with the US involvement in the financial industry, and it could be argued that agricultural subsidies have been a major contributor to obesity and health issues in the US, which ends up costing more money than the subsidies themselves (along with the obvious non-economic aspects).

I think that the federal government should subsidize research, and should help ensure that the free market takes into account the full cost of things (like environmental degradation), and otherwise try to hang back a bit. As it long as it helps ensure the fairer rules (rather than just putting off the long term costs of things), I think the government can play an important but largely indirect role.

I agree that subsidies can and do go awry, particularly regarding the food industry. It just seems that, in this case, the concept of subsidies is being attacked, when really, it is green energy that the OP/conservatives are objecting to. If it were subsidies-- government investing in various industries-- that was the problem, then where is the outcry against all those other subsidies that occur? Oh, I forget: they like those other industries. Green energy is not liked, and therefore, it should not receive subsidies; not because subsidies in and of themselves are wrong or bad or because our country can't afford them.

If you agree to work with Penumbra (who I would elect in a heartbeat), Revoltingest, you can be in charge of government investments in strategic industries.

And Reverend Rick, if you are seriously worried about the debt, I really don't think cutting funding for green energy is the first place to attack. Look to the tax cuts and military spending. The pickings there have much more meat than the lean chickens you're playing around with here.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No it is an easily demonstrably fact not a belief. To argue otherwise is idiotic as we have lots of accurate data of global temperatures. An argument could be made the humans don't cause global warming but not that global warming isn't happening.

The global temperature graphs I have seen does not support this.

I will be glad to look at your data on the subject.

 

[Panda]

The global temperature graphs I have seen does not support this.

I will be glad to look at your data on the subject.

Are you sure you've looked at any? Here is one

another

There is also the fact the ice caps are melting. Frozen planet (BBC series on the North and South Poles) has some very good documentation showing the effects of the increased temperatures.

In the last 100 years the average global temperature HAS risen by around 0.75 degrees.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you agree to work with Penumbra (who I would elect in a heartbeat), Revoltingest, you can be in charge of government investments in strategic industries.

Deal!
How do you feel about bacon research subsidies?

 

[Falvlun]

Deal!
How do you feel about bacon research subsidies?

I think it has great potential. Bacon is hot hot hot right now!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Are you sure you've looked at any? Here is one

another

There is also the fact the ice caps are melting. Frozen planet (BBC series on the North and South Poles) has some very good documentation showing the effects of the increased temperatures.

In the last 100 years the average global temperature HAS risen by around 0.75 degrees.

Your graph ends in 2004.

Do you have the the numbers for the last eight years?

 

[Panda]

Your graph ends in 2004.

Do you have the the numbers for the last eight years?

Here is a page from the met office about this (with up to date graphs)

The climate in 2011 - Met Office

 

[Father Heathen]

Combating pollution is an extra expense and inconvenience for the industries responsible for it. They don't wish to deal with the matter, so they have the politicians in their pockets convince their witless voter base that it's a "myth", despite the insurmountable mountain of evidence and scientific data that confirms the contrary.

Who's insight should we trust on the matter; the international scientific community or Cletus and his rusted out pick-up truck with "Git-R-Dun" bumper stickers plastered all over it?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Here is a page from the met office about this (with up to date graphs)

The climate in 2011 - Met Office

If you notice, up till 2004, the discussion is global warming.

After that, it is climate change.

The reason there was a change I believe is because the planet temps have not rose on the last few years.

Surely you see the goal posts moving here.

I have said many times I am a global warming agnostic.