Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

How about poverty itself? Poverty is behavior based. If you hold a full time job (almost any job), avoid having illegitimate kids, get married and stay faithful and avoid drugs and alcohol, it is almost impossible to stay poor. Everybody can be poor for a while, but only 1.7% of faithful married couples with children suffer long-term poverty.

Source? That’s a pretty bold claim to put forth without citing a source for the statistic.

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 2, 2005 11:34 PM

I have seen it quoted in many places. I searched and found it here - http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba428 - along with some other information.

Posted by: Jack at October 2, 2005 11:37 PM

There is much merit in what you say, Jack, for those who capable of understanding and accepting its wisdom.

What your article ignores is the sociological, psychological, and demographic probabilility and statistics which correlate generational trends, tendencies, values, and views.

Poverty is stigmatizing, limiting psychologically and physically, and traumatizing. If you have ever worked with or gotten to know someone suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome, you would recognize the debilitating power of stress. And poverty is absolutely one of the greatest stresses this society can place on children growing up. Add racial bigotry, or other visible minority marker to poverty, and the effect is doubled or more.

A small percentage of poor, are gifted with the insight, the innate smarts, or a mentor which sustains them in overcoming the limitations of poverty and/or racial bigotry. But that situation is not the rule. One research I read about had to do with urban planning, in which it was demonstrated that mixed socio-economic strata in the same subdivision, ranging for very poor to very well off, with adjacent homes being of different status, had an immense moderating effect on reducing elitism and standoffish behavior of the well off, and culturally uplifting values for the very poor to the extent that nearly without exception, all properties were meticulously maintained, and there was strong neighbor involvement by all classes in things like Neighborhood Watch, Homeowner’s Association activities, and neighborly relations across socio-economic status.

These factors continue to be ignored and unlearned by far too many. There is an opportunity to implement such environmental infrastructures in the Gulf Region devastated by the hurricanes. But, how many politicians do you think are even aware enough of these urban planning research studies to inquire further into them? I would doubt there are any.

Institutionalization of class segregation and racial segregation (at new all time highs by some measures) and stimatizing of the poor, disabled, and aged, is part and parcel of our planning, bureaucracies, and institutions. Change this, and you can change the perceived opportunities and open doors for vast numbers of folks present and future who will otherwise react to life and choices from a negative and stress ridden perspective.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 2, 2005 11:46 PM

Jack,
Are you saying that a person should get married strictly for financial reasons? Have you even done the math that goes alone with that idea? If you hace two wage earners making money for the same houshold does it not make “Common Sense” that they would naturally have more “Per Household Income” than a Single Person facing the same expenses?

Poverty for a Family of 4 is around $16,500.00/yr. If you have two people making $5.15/hr they have an annual income of $21,424.00/yr puuting them above the Poverty Line. However, if the Single person making the same $5.15/hr their annual Income is only $10,712.00/yr. Now add one or two children for the single mom who was forced to be single in order to recieve certain benifits for her children and it is quickly to see the faslehood in the NCPA Report.

The report that you read on the mixed socio-economic strata in the same subdivision is one of the best ways to combat some of the problems faced by the very poor. The only problem with that idea is The NIMBY effect that faces our elected officals. Try building an afford housing project next to a golf course or country club.

No, America as a society need to take a deep look in the mirror and recognize that the Trickle Down Economics of the Regean Era is over. What we need to do is start an economic policy that pushes from the Bottom Up. By increasing the wages of our lowest hourly paid citizens combined with a tax incentive package that will bring them around to investing in themselve, America can break the cycle of living in poverty.

Health Insurance could be meet easily by a $2.00/hr wage increase that goes toward the purchase of Special Treasury Notes. Considering it would allow the person to save $4,160.00 in the most secured form possible and allow each person to use these funds to borrow against future medical bills, this program would work out great to add to the economy. Additionally, part of this “Superfund” could be borrowed by the Medical Researchers to create better medical drugs and equipment.

$1.00/hr. over a 40 year period invested at only 4% interest gaurantees each person a million dollars plus. Considering that is the average rate of today’s US Treasury Bonds there should be no question about the future for a person willing to work.

No, while they problemms facing America seem great and beyond the ability of our leaders to fix, it is and has been a sham for the last 35-40 years. The bottom line is that to many of the Social Elite in America and The World have kept this secert from the citizens that serve them. Yet, it is true that if 40 years ago they would of told everyone we could put an end to poverty in our lifetime we would not of believed them. Today, that story is different. Now which political party will lead the nation to fulfill The Founding Fathers’ Vision is the only question that has yet to be answered.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 3, 2005 02:14 AM

Interesting comment from David. I have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. There is easily attainable help available for even the most poor. Zoloft is very helpful as an anti-anxiety and depression help. As for creating mixed socio-economic neighborhoods, when the government tries to fix something it usually does an incredible job of making things worse. Socialism doesn’t work either. If people & the media would get their head out of the sand & see how interdependent we are as a society, most would pull together. As Jack said society is a team.

Posted by: Tom at October 3, 2005 02:22 AM

This is probably my biggest problem with the left. I realize that people are poor, and I don’t want to see anyone without the necessities of life, however, it is NOT my responsibility to keep people out of poverty.

I understand about Post Tramatic Stress Syndrome also since I suffer from it in a mild way, However, It is not YOUR responsibility to treat me for it or give me any additional benefits because of it.

Yes, if employers paid $2 more per hour, a lot of people could pull their way out of poverty. That’s NOT the way our system works.

Most people start businesses to make their fortune. (any problem so far?) The owner of the business has the right to set his prices and the wages he pays. (any problem so far?). If he prices too high he can’t sell his product and if he pays too little, he won’t get or keep employees.

We have means to keep most people out of poverty and it is called CHARITY not ENTITLEMENTS.

Posted by: tomd at October 3, 2005 05:04 AM

Tom and Henry, check out the history of urban planning sprawl checking in Oregon. There are a number of actual case histories in which the research I discussed above has been implemented with amazing results. One example:

While the Portland area population has surged 25% in two decades, its developed land has increased only 2%.

Can’t find the link at the moment, but in Arizona I believe, they created new subdivisions straight out of the research plan, with amazing results. I will look more for the link later today.

Also, almost all universities with civil engineering and urban planning degree programs now have courses dealing with and touting the successes of the few communities which have already implemented these strategies. It is not just theoretical academic discussion. The research is solid, and Places like Portland have been benefitting from their innovative cross socio-economic development for many years now.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 05:46 AM

Jack,

Society is not like a family; it is like a team

I disagree. Societies should be more like a team, but unfortunatly it’s in fact more like jungle.

Most people are fighting against others to survive in jobs market, for a start. Hey, that’s (one, global) free market, right?
Indeed.
Nobody help you to get a job/ an healty life they’re themselves fighting for most of time.
Very few are that altruists.

However, I agree that’s when societies act as a team the best and quickest progresses are made and made for most of its members.

If people don’t like you, figure out what you are doing to provoke them and stop it.

Maybe I’m out of context here by trying to move this to non domestic zone, but what about putting this advice to work on current US foreign policy and War On Terror?

Is it all your own fault if terrorists attacked WtC?
Is it all your fault if most of world nations’s people disagree or dislike current USA foreign policies?
Is it all your fault if everyone over the world is angry about your “waste energy addiction/american way of life can’t be negociated” position regarding Global Climate changes?

Even if I think your country have some responsabilities, I don’t think it’s all US fault.
Your “It’s all your fault”, aka “Don’t blame someone except yourself” don’t work here, it seems? Why?

Your title sounds as “Everyone for Himself” to me, and it’s not working when it comes to global issues point of view.
And that’s why also I don’t think it works fine for everyone in individual issue(s) scale.

From EuroLand,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 3, 2005 06:20 AM

David,
You are right about urban sprawling becoming a serious national issues, yet I still worry about “The NIMBY Factor” that our elected officials have to deal with on every proposed project. Granted some of the community’s concerns are justified, but the ones that affordable housing developers run into is the fact that most citzens think that affordable housing means the same thing as Housing Projects of the 60’s.

BTW, I searched Urban Sprawling real quick on the web and came up with This Site which gives information on Portland, Arizona, and 47 other states. While even they are having problems keeping within the lines, the one major point that they are missing is the “Bio-engineering” of the building of the land. For when we begin to address that part of the problem with poverty and land use I do believe that Americans will begin to wake up on just how dumb we have been building things. Did you know that it is possible to build an entire city that actually would create money for its citizens?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 3, 2005 07:14 AM

Philippe

You are right that we should try to figure out what is making them mad, but countries usually lack what individuals usually have: the ability to avoid some people and some situations. This is especially true of the U.S.

It is fairly clear what the terrorists don’t like about us. Osama bin Laden tells us. Various manifestos make it clear. Since we would be unwilling (or in some cases unable) to comply with demands such as the return or Andalusia, the pullout, economically and politically, of the West from the Arab world or a great increase in the price of oil (actually we are kind of doing that one), we are stuck with the conflict.

Re Kyoto, Bush made a mistake. He should have done as most others have done. Sign up and understand that you won’t meet the goals.

There is a fundamental difference in problem solving and negotiation style between Americans and continental Europeans. As a citizen of France, please give me your opinion.

The French are still Cartesians. They believe in what they consider the logical solution that fits all situations. They have a plan that is supposed to work into the future. Of course, the preferred solution is often the same as the French solution, but it is usually sincere. Americans are pragmatists. We don’t believe in any ultimate solutions. Our preferred decision-making is active experimentation. We expect to try different things. Many won’t work, but some will be the most appropriate possible. Our problems are complicated by the fact that we use the same words but we don’t mean the same things by them.

Kyoto was a good example of the differences. Americans figured out that the treaty would not actually achieve reductions, especially because the big future polluters, like China, Indian and Brazil, were not included. So we rejected it. Europeans saw the treaty as an important goal setting. They also knew they wouldn’t meet the goals and it wouldn’t solve the problem, but they saw it as a necessary first step.

Let me sum up. The preferred Euro style is to figure out what you want to accomplish and then make a rule to do that without sufficient regard to what actually can be accomplished in a practical sense. The U.S. style is to determine what actually can be done with the resources available and limits, without sufficient regard to setting a higher goal.

Posted by: Jack at October 3, 2005 07:19 AM

Jack:
I totally agree with you…Let’s all WORK together, and we could take someone off the system. Let’s all WORK together, and we could help someone get and stay off drugs/alcohol. Let’s all WORK together, and we could help someone…………
Notice the pattern? Let’s (let us) WORK (explains itself) Together (explains itself) SOMEONE (someone else besides yourself) OFF OF (fill in the blank) WE NEED TO HELP PEOPLE TO HELP THEMSELVES AND IN THE END IT HELPS ALL OF US IN THE U.S.A.

GRAMMY in NEEDLES, CAlifornia

Posted by: grammy at October 3, 2005 07:21 AM

Republicans blame the liberal media and witch-hunting democrat partisans for every scandal that erupts. It encourages a loose regulatory climate that rewards corruption and discourages honest behavior by competitive forces, which allows companies to disadvantage workers lower on the ladder, ensuring that these people will depend more on the government and that economic fluctuations will pummel the lower classes worse.

All this encourages an adversarial tone in the community and in the workplace- customer against business owners, workers against bosses, Republicans against Democrats, citizens against their government. Such adversarial relationships ensure that people will spend most of the time blaming somebody else for their problems, than taking care of things themselves.

If you want responsibility, your party should practice it, and encourage it in the law and the workplace.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2005 07:50 AM

Jack,

Here is a test case for your philosophy. North Dakotans get back $1.75 for every dollar they pay in federal taxes, one of the highest rates in the country. Should North Dakotans (who aren’t poor, collectively speaking) move somewhere where they can make it without federal assistance?

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 3, 2005 08:41 AM

tomd
Yes, if employers paid $2 more per hour, a lot of people could pull their way out of poverty. That’s NOT the way our system works.

Every time the mimium wage goes up so do prices.
Employers have to raise prices to cover the cost. That means everyone pays more for eveything they buy. The same would be true if employers paid $2 more per hour.
I fail to see how it would help people out of poverty.

We have means to keep most people out of poverty and it is called CHARITY not ENTITLEMENTS.

No its called employment.
I’ve offered jobs to people on welfare and have had only one in about 50 take the job. I start an employee with no work experience a $8 per hour. That comes to $16,640 a year. No, its not much over the $16,500 poverty line for a family of 4, but I’ll bet its more that a family of 4 makes on welfare.
That $8 per hour is only starting pay. There are pay raises during the year depending on their perfromance. If their performance is exceptiional they could be and most likely will be making $10 per hour by the time they’ve been there a year.
Most my employees end up with $9.50 to $9.75 per hour.
While not all employers give out these kind of pay raises, most all do give raises over the first year.
Raises after the first year are usually semi annual or annual, depending on the employer.
So where is the incentive to staying on welfare?
Before youall liberials come up with your usual ‘not everyone is capable of holding a job’ I know that. However MOST people on welfare ARE capable of holding a job.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 3, 2005 10:06 AM

You can expect your teammates to help you, but they expect you to do your part

Jack, once again your article is vague and ‘platitudinal’ [my contribution to the English language :)] enough that I have to agree. But as David pointed out, having the will is not always enough.

David, I posted an article here about President Clinton’s very successful Hope VI economically integrated public housing initiative.

Breaking out of poverty is just as much (or more) learning how to do it, as having the will. Since they don’t teach that in school, it means mentoring or some other method of exposure to those who know a path to economic security other than dealing drugs. The Clinton Foundation’s Small Business Initiative is a great example.

Kyoto was a good example of the differences. Americans figured out that the treaty would not actually achieve reductions, especially because the big future polluters, like China, Indian and Brazil, were not included. So we rejected it.

That’s interesting, Jack. Since it was just ratified recently, I think it’s pretty bold to conclude Kyoto won’t achieve reductions. As for China and India, the next round of talks has already started and they include caps for developing countries as well. At what point do we stop being part of the problem and become good team players?

Posted by: American Pundit at October 3, 2005 10:33 AM

The legal system has made things much worse in terms of excusing criminal behavior. Too many “crutches” have been provided.

Horrific crimes of passion, murder, rape, kidnapping and others are being argued as excusable on conditions of “he/she was abused as a child”, “battered woman syndrome”, post traumatic stress disorder”, “by reason of mental impairment” etc.

Now, unquestionably the above disorders are suffered by many people who do not commit crimes and even by some who do. Unfortunately these diseases are described so well in literature, on the internet, etc. that they can be practiced by criminals to the point where thay can fool even the most astute of the physicians who will examine them. There are even lawyers who specialize in defenses with these maladies as the foundation for innocence.

Posted by: steve smith at October 3, 2005 10:38 AM

Kyoto was a good example of the differences. Americans figured out that the treaty would not actually achieve reductions, especially because the big future polluters, like China, Indian and Brazil, were not included. So we rejected it.

This is hypocritical in a couple of important ways. First of all, it is an example of using a lame excuse to dodge responsibility. The US is the world’s largest C02 emitter, but you don’t think we should accept a treaty because some other countries have not promised to reduce their emissions. By this logic, no one has to take responsibility for anything. I can steal, smoke crack, and engage in random violence, because all of these activities will continue to happen whether I do them or not.

You are also being “French” by making the perfect the enemy of the good. You say Kyoto isn’t worth signing because it doesn’t include China and India. That is not a pragmatic approach.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 3, 2005 10:47 AM

Woody:

Why did Congress not ratify the Kyoto Treaty under the Clinton administration? At least part of the rationale was that the treaty benefitted certain countries, and would have hurt the US economically in comparison.

Seems to me that when you makes rules for playing a game (in this case, an economic and ecological game), but you exempt certain players from having to follow the rules, it is patently unfair. For example, if Company A is allowed to use beneficial accounting regulations, but Companies B and C are not, doesn’t that help Company A and conversely, hurt Companies B and C? By allowing certain countries to not regulate their emissions, that helps them and hurts the countries that are required to regulate.

I’m all for limiting CO2 emissions, but I’m not for playing the game by rules that are different for my competition. The US can enact CO2 limits internally through the EPA to the standards that we believe are correct. If the world wants standards, lets make global standards. But not rules that are different for different players.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 3, 2005 10:58 AM

TomD-
Upper level management and CEOs constantly get pay raises, despite mediocre performance. Meanwhile, workers get paid less and less relative to the costs of living, forcing those at the bottom to become burdens on the state despite being in the workforce.

Fact of the matter is, the people up top are being too greedy and their lack of generosity towards their employees both discourages people from doing their best, and discourages them from seeking employment in the first place, if they are on Welfare. Additionally, there is little capability of attenuating the costs of entitlements when cut-rate wages force employees to seek state assistance to get food, housing and other essentials.

If we were more equitable in distributing the fruits of labor, we would all see the benefits, for what else is economic strength but the ability of an economy to benefit more people to a greater extent. There will always be rich and poor folks, but how sharp is the dividing line, and how much do the riches hoard to themselves?

It’s amazing that people will invoke the market to justify being cheap, and raising prices of necessities through the roof, but when the time comes to consider paying people enough to enable them to be self-sufficient economic actors, rather than burdens of the state, they start talking like the economic colonialists that Adam Smith was decrying in his day.

The Market is a door that swings both ways. If you insist on making medical costs high, people will wait longer to get treatment, die more and sue you more, and your costs will rise. Charge a reasonable rate, and people will come in sooner, problems will be easier to manage, and your insurance rates will be better.

If you insist on charging an arm and a leg on insurance, people will expect you to come through with greater fervor, and will sue if their claims are denied, especially if the denial is systematic.

If you charge an arm and a leg for a medicine, people might either decide to go without or they might just take the minimum they can get a way with. If any problems occur with the drug, of course, litigation follows, because you insisted on your return on that investment no matter what.

The greed of CEO’s across the board is hamstringing the American economy, and making litigation a greater fact of life. The price for their free-wheeling business climate is that the people hurt by the business practices and higher costs are fighting back by more informal methods. If people could count on the law and regulations as written to punish those who cheat, overcharge, and endanger them, they might not be so quick to sue, and take their revenge in the civil courts.

Fact of the matter is, the rule of the jungle carries with it the tyrannies of the jungle, and with that the viciousness of behavior we all resent from others. If we could count on respect and conscientious behavior from others, and a culture that values cooperation as much as competition and adversarial protection of interests, then the tenor of our culture might become considerably more positive.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2005 11:22 AM

At least part of the rationale was that the treaty benefitted certain countries, and would have hurt the US economically in comparison.

JBOD, according to President Bush’s own Energy Information Administration, a cap & trade system like Kyoto would only cost us one tenth of one percent of our GNP. Chump change. So that argument is now officially BS.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 3, 2005 11:39 AM

Whenever Jack lays out his “solutions” to the plight of America’s poor, I get the exact same feeling as I do when I hear Bush spouting off about “freedom”.

AP, good posts.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 11:48 AM

AP,

The issue is not how much it would cost us, we are ready to implement many of the changes needed to meet Kyoto needs, we do not need to be a member of the bad treaty in order to do so.

The reason it is a bad treaty is that it gives the countries that will be the largest polluters within the next 5 years a pass. China and India would be exempt from the treaty, it focuses on using the west to fund the needs of the developing countries unfairly.

Even former President Clinton recognized this and recommended against the US joining this treaty even though he once supported it. The *idea* was good, the *implementation* of the treaty is horrible.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 11:52 AM

JBOD:

Short reply - life is unfair.

International law is different than domestic law. Within a country, it makes sense to say that laws shouldn’t give one firm an unfair advantage over another. In the case of China and India, you can’t simply go and MAKE them reduce their emissions. They are powerful sovereign countries (with nuclear weapons, no less). The ideal of fairness you describe is unconnected to reality in this case.

Incidentally, some people from developing countries argue that it is “fair” for them to industrialize under the same conditions we did (that is, polluting like crazy). I don’t buy this argument, but it is another idea of fairness.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 3, 2005 12:33 PM

Rhinehold-
One, do you agree that we should reduced greenhouse gas emissions?

Two, do you believe that the failure of other countries to live by an anti-pollution standard means that it’s in our best interest to continue our emissions at present levels?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2005 01:38 PM

Stephen Daugherty
The greed of CEO’s across the board is hamstringing the American economy, and making litigation a greater fact of life.

And most of the CEOs went to liberial colleges and were taught by left wing nut professors. Then they go out and apply what they’ve learn in the neolib colleges.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 3, 2005 01:50 PM

Woody

It depends. A lot of grain is grown in N. Dakota. Some of the federal money going into Dakota is for the infrastructure that brings the grain to make the Cheerios and French toast that people in other parts of the country eat. If the people in N. Dakota were just living up there and producing nothing, I would advocate that they move or pay their own way. I have been to N. Dakota. Nobody lives up there for the climate, beaches or stimulating theatre. I figure anyone living up there has a good reason.

Adrienne

Many liberals mistake a societal response with a government response. Government response is only part of the total and if it can be done without the government, so much the better. When government gets involved, other parts of society and individual initiative atrophy.

You can see the success and failure of various programs to address poverty and development. The successful ones require something from the recipient. Welfare Reform was successful because it required input from the recipient. Building government housing without any requirements was a monumental failure. Micro lending has been a great thing in the developing world. People borrow small amounts of money - and they pay it back. Large grants to governments have just built up klepocracies.

Nobody is so helpless that he can’t be expected to take part in his own redemption from poverty. And if someone will not pitch in to help himself, there is nothing anyone else can do to help him.

We talked about poverty. But I also mentioned fat people. This is a very interesting thing, since nobody can make anyone else (with the exception I suppose of babies and small children) without the active cooperation of the fat guy. This is a clear example of self imposed trouble. That obesity is a problem of the poor says something about the abundance of modern society as well as the habits of the poor.

Stephen

The societal response is not the government response. We should reduce greenhouse emissions. We will do that only through technology. We should use more nuclear power in the short term and develop alternatives in the long run. Our society is doing the latter. You can invest in these things and - so far - make very good money. (Try Energy Conversion Devices Inc. Although you should have bought a month ago.) Demand for energy drops with prices, as incentives for alternatives rise. We would have more nuclear energy (the French make 78% of their energy with nukes; we do about 14%) except for political opposition. If Kyoto would help get more nuclear energy built in the U.S., I would be for it. But the irony is that supporters of Kyoto are often also opponents of nuclear power.

We should also work harder with biotechnology to develop plant species that can adapt to different types of environments.

Posted by: Jack at October 3, 2005 02:16 PM

“This is probably my biggest problem with the left. I realize that people are poor, and I don’t want to see anyone without the necessities of life, however, it is NOT my responsibility to keep people out of poverty.”

As someone speaking from the Left, let me just say that I don’t think the Left really believes in an entitlement culture.

I believe strongly in personal accountability and that we reap what we sow. However it is comments like “it is NOT my responsibility to keep people out of poverty” that show exactly what is wrong with our culture.

That statement embodies the “me against you” attitude that makes our entire society poorer. Jack spoke of us viewing society as a team, and I couldn’t agree more. We are a team and it is EVERYONE’S responsibility to ensure that the team functions at its highest level.

As a team, we should be able to envision our team goals and work together to achieve them. tomd, you state that you don’t want to see anyone without the necessities in life. That right there is a team goal. Now how can both sides of the fence work together to achieve this goal? I would say its starts with accountability on both sides. From the less advantaged, it may begin with fostering a culture of personal responsibility and accountability. From the privileged, it may begin with accepting a higher tax rate to fund INVESTMENT in the less-advantaged — for example, educational initiatives.

The problem is that too often we view policy not as one team with one common goal but as two teams pitted against each other where one wins and one loses. Each team says “I want mine now,” which leads to policies that amount to entitlements or leaving the poor out in the cold entirely, neither of which leads to the desirable team outcome.

So in the spirit of what Jack said, let’s all ask what we can do for our country, not just for ourselves. And let’s realize that there is often a middle ground that requires a short term “cost” or sacrifice from both sides that allows us to achieve desirable long term gains. Let’s start thinking about where we want this team to be in the future and invest in that future, instead of always saying “I want mine now.”

Posted by: Andrew L. at October 3, 2005 02:33 PM

Rhinehold- One, do you agree that we should reduced greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes (qualified). At what cost and how we do it is the key. But I do believe, as a conservationist (not environmentalist) that we should be finding alternative, clean methods of providing the energy we need at realistic and appropriate costs.

Two, do you believe that the failure of other countries to live by an anti-pollution standard means that it’s in our best interest to continue our emissions at present levels?

Since I answered yes to number one, does number two apply? I don’t think it matters about the other countries, we should be working to reduce ours.

Now, after answering, let me continue a bit. I don’t believe that we are on a ‘collission course of doom’ that is presented by some in the environmental (read:religion) movement. I do understand how these things work and agree that the cheapest, cleanest fuel that doesn’t require using natural resources (ie, wind, solar, etc) is the best method. I would also like to see us moving towards nuclear as well. I don’t like being dependant upon any foreign entity for any of our energy needs (or any need for that matter) from a purely political matter…

Does that help, Stephen?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 3, 2005 03:08 PM

Jack,

I don’t pretend to be an expert on agricultural subsidies, but why do they need massive subsidies to produce something that can be sold on the open market? Would we all starve if we simply paid for our food? (Help me out here, libertarians!) Many conservatives see these huge government outlays as pork. Apparently you are not of that camp.

By the way, I do agree with the thrust of your article. The devil is in the details.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 3, 2005 03:44 PM

Woody Mena
I don’t pretend to be an expert on agricultural subsidies, but why do they need massive subsidies to produce something that can be sold on the open market?

It’s because the farmers in general (not all) have bought into the liberial lie that they cann’t make it without the governments help.

Would we all starve if we simply paid for our food?

No.

Many conservatives see these huge government outlays as pork.

That’s because it is.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 3, 2005 03:51 PM

AP:

Members of both the Clinton (Democratic) and Bush (Republican) administrations think that the Kyoto treaty was flawed and shouldn’t be ratified. Considering the very different mindsets that are in agreement on that, I’d have to suggest that the agreement is in fact flawed.

Woody:

I dont follow your point at all. You talk about how India and China cannot be forced to sign a treaty, but you insist that the US should sign the very same treaty. You seem also to be saying that its unfair withIN a country to make competition slanted, but its okay within the world at large. I’d not agree with that premise.

By the way, I wouldn’t hold that every country has to have identical rules. I favor a flat tax (but one with some fluctuation), I favor capitalism (but capitalism with a flavor of social programs as opposed to pure capitalism), and I also favor a Kyoto treaty that allows for some recognition of different country’s being in various stages of growth.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 3, 2005 03:52 PM

Ron Brown,

And most of the CEOs went to liberial colleges and were taught by left wing nut professors. Then they go out and apply what they’ve learn in the neolib colleges.

Wow, that’s way out there in right field! Got a source? An example, perhaps? A conspiracy theory ala Ann Coulter?

Posted by: Charles Wager at October 3, 2005 04:31 PM

Jack:
“When government gets involved, other parts of society and individual initiative atrophy.”

This is the standard Republican line — and that is what I meant by getting the same feeling when I hear Bush, our FREC/Patriot Act president talking about “freedom”. Words ladled out to sound appealing, but are in fact, quite empty of meaning.
Your party has NEVER put forward any ideas that were intended to help the poor. Your party is and always has been, about helping the rich get richer, period.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like government hand-outs when they don’t seem to help people get out of poverty, either. And I’m fully aware that poor people need to be motivated in order to do so — but the majority of the time I don’t see any ideas from the right other than the very vaguest of faith-based, voluntarily-driven, charity-style solutions. Nor do I sense any real caring or tangible desire from the Right to find real workable solutions to poverty in America.

You speak of micro-lending in the developing world (and I’ll give you credit for that, because I think it’s an interesting idea), but I don’t believe you should be holding your breath if you actually expect your party to suddenly get on board with a broad range of ideas such as that one. It would go against everything the GOP has ever stood for to start reaching a hand up to people whose daily lives are in desperate need of one.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 04:42 PM

Ron Brown,

It’s because the farmers in general (not all) have bought into the liberial lie that they cann’t make it without the governments help.

Apparently our convervative Congress and the Bush administration have also bought into this “liberal” lie. Regardless of how farm subsidies started, they have now devolved into just one more example of corporate subsidies. I agree that if we get rid of all corporate subsidies then individuals will be in a much better position to survive without help from the government. Why don’t we start there?

Posted by: Charles Wager at October 3, 2005 04:47 PM

Farm subsidies came about at a time when society rationalized it should be as self suffient as possible; that our food supply contributed to our well-being, and that wisdom precluded monopolies taking us hostage… Of course we no longer need food, it is solely power on which we subsist. Today we are all being educated in the progressive wisdom of globalizing markets such as the oil industry. We are after all, a global village and need to make our towns and cities more empathetic to world wide influence.

Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 06:25 PM

farmers are no different than most of us. it’s hard work and costly to grow a crop. not to mention the risk that mother nature can wipe it all away. so why not take a handout when it wraped in a nice pretty little bow.

Posted by: steve at October 3, 2005 06:36 PM

Charles Wager
And most of the CEOs went to liberial colleges and were taught by left wing nut professors. Then they go out and apply what theyⶥ learn in the neolib colleges.

Wow, that’s way out there in right field! Got a source? An example, perhaps? A conspiracy theory ala Ann Coulter?

O yeah, bad me, I forgot, every CEO went to the only college that had the ONE conservitive in the world and had him for all their classes.
Fact is 99% of the colleges are run by the neolibs and have liberial professors.

Charles Wager
I agree that if we get rid of all corporate subsidies then individuals will be in a much better position to survive without help from the government. Why don’t we start there?

Sounds good to me. Now we need to convence the politicans.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 3, 2005 06:50 PM

How can conservatives support farm subsidies when there is this free capitalist idea which has been around for centuries called insurance. Why won’t conservatives tell farmers to buy crop insurance like they tell the poor in America to buy health insurance?

Hmmm… quandary!!! Give’s conservatives a headache and makes them point to centrists and liberals as the cause. Laughably.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 06:56 PM

steve
farmers are no different than most of us. it’s hard work and costly to grow a crop. not to mention the risk that mother nature can wipe it all away. so why not take a handout when it wraped in a nice pretty little bow.

I grew up on a farm and know how much work goes into growing a crop. I also know it’s costly, and you might get one really good year in 5. Most years you manage a small profit though.
I live on a farm now but only run cattle on it. This isn’t cheap either.
The problem is when you start taking Government money, they want to start telling you what to do.
Also there is a thing called crop insurance incase crops are wiped out by weather conditions.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 3, 2005 07:00 PM

David R. Remer
Why won’t conservatives tell farmers to buy crop insurance like they tell the poor in America to buy health insurance?

I wish they would!
Farm subsidies were started as a liberial program and everyone else seems to have jumped on the band wagon.
As I stated earlier a have a few head of cattle on my place. I have them insured incase of loss. But would you believe that the last time beef prices took a nosedive the government told me I had to sign up for a subsidy. I never did. Wonder if they’d want to give me a subsidy if my cattle were stoleneven though I’m insured?

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 3, 2005 07:10 PM

How can conservatives support farm subsidies when there is this free capitalist idea which has been around for centuries called insurance. Why won’t conservatives tell farmers to buy crop insurance like they tell the poor in America to buy health insurance?

Hmmm… quandary!!! Give’s conservatives a headache and makes them point to centrists and liberals as the cause. Laughably.

David,
i don’t think i have heard any conservative support farm subsidies. It is something today that only interferes with the large agri-factory business from buying out all the small farms and locking up their monopoly.

Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 07:14 PM

It is a failure of imagination that allows large numbers of Americans to misunderstand poverty and characterize it as a failure of will. Certainly for some of the poor, this is the case. But the vast majority of the poor have little choice in the matter. If you examine the epidemiology of things like learning disabilities, mental illness, and other limiting physical or psychological abnormalities, and you add up all the small fractions of the population they represent, it is surprising there aren’t more people in poverty. The afflicted at most hold the lowest paying jobs, and those jobs assure that those holding them are the working poor. Further, the frequency of these ailments within communities who are already poor is exceedingly higher than in more well-to-do communities. It’s trite, but no man (or woman) is an island, and the plight of the poor affects us all. It cheapens our society and it makes us meaner, in all senses of that word. I agree with Jack that government often does a poor job of what it attempts to do, but so do private efforts, and that’s because we’re all human and because politics colors every human undertaking. The original welfare laws made sure that no woman who received family assistance was cohabiting with an able-bodied man. The moralists wanted to make sure that man supported the woman instead of the state, a reasonable tack if one assumed that the able-bodied man could hold a job good enough to support the family. But in the era of racism, this was a bad assumption, especially among minorities. Thus, welfare served to exacerbate the already sizable problem of fatherless families. Only the extraordinary can escape the confines of their own community and see beyond what is modeled. To deny this is analogous to asserting that since Einstein rewrote the laws of physics, we should all be able to.

In summary, the milk of human kindness compels us all to recognize that the poor need our help and realism must acknowledge that the most effective was to provide that help is through the collective power of government, run humanely and judiciously through elected representatives who understand what is at the heart of the people’s concern. Any other course is a replay of the Victorian prejudice that punishes the victims in order to protect the pocketbooks of the unfair.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 3, 2005 07:27 PM

Jo, Bush supports them. He hasn’t vetoed a single one. And the Congress is Republican controlled whence comes the subsidies. Once again, rhetoric fails to match reality and conservatives choose to defend the rhetoric despite the reality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 08:50 PM

Ron Brown, they probably would. Look at Katrina. They are handing out money like candy on Halloween to folks who chose to take the risk of living there AND bought insurance.

I understand helping those who couldn’t afford insurance (unemployed, or disabled), but, homeowner’s insurance policies have coverage for temporary living expenses in the event of a covered total loss of one’s home. The great giveaway is for political reelection PR purposes and tax payers once again are raped for politics.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 08:55 PM

David,

At this time the agri-factories are pretty even with the family farmers… Bush can satisfy both groups by allowing farm subsidies for the family farms and big business allowances for the agri-factories. But of course the factories are growing and small farms declining so farm subsidies will be phased out soo to be replaced with big business concerns.

Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 09:05 PM

Mental Wimp — well done!
Not only do I consider what you wrote very Wise and True, but found your wording extremely eloquent.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 09:57 PM

Adrienne

The Bush Administration has been funding micro-finance and conservatives encourage it.

We don’t like poverty any more than you do. If you want to keep it within the paradigm you understand about conservatives, think of it this selfish way. The poor are not good customers because they don’t have much money to buy products. It is better for business if people are productive. The idle poor produce nothing and are just a drag on the economy. The working poor produce little and tend to put a strain on social services. Better for everybody if they are prosperous and holding steady jobs.

It is impossible to exploit someone who doesn’t have any money and doesn’t do any useful work. So we need to make people richer in order to effectively exploit them.

Posted by: jack at October 3, 2005 10:03 PM

It is impossible to exploit someone who doesn’t have any money and doesn’t do any useful work. So we need to make people richer in order to effectively exploit them.

Ah, so that explains the right wing corporate investments in India, China, ….

Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 10:35 PM

Jo

You could put it that way. I started out a poor boy. I guess you might accuse the right wing of investing in me (they were very nice to me when I was in B-school, for example) so that I could later be exploited as a consumer and a Republican voter. If so, I hope the exploitation never ends.

You actually put your finger on why the free market is such a good thing. We all have selfish incentives to want others to do well since it also makes our piece of the pie bigger.

Posted by: Jack at October 3, 2005 10:44 PM

Jack,

Too bad the corporations choose to give workers in other countries ‘raises’ rather than american workers.. but then, those executives do not plan on retiring here now do they. So it makes sense they would invest in the society of THEIR future rather than in the American society that provided the opportunities for them to succed. Yup..

Take the money and run. Grab as much as you can as fast as you can cutting as many corners and diving through as many loop-holes as you can get away with then jump ship and thumb your nose at the poor suckers you fed off all those decades.

Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 11:07 PM

The issue is not how much it would cost us, we are ready to implement many of the changes needed to meet Kyoto needs

No we’re not, Rhinehold. And President Bush repeatedly tells us that it’s too expensive. You guys need to get your stories straight.

The reason it is a bad treaty is that it gives the countries that will be the largest polluters within the next 5 years a pass.

I mentioned in the previous post that the next round of Kyoto involves India and China. We’re not signing on to that one either, so that kinda throws that theory out.

Members of both the Clinton (Democratic) and Bush (Republican) administrations think that the Kyoto treaty was flawed and shouldn’t be ratified.

JBOD, the treaty was still negotiable after Clinton left office — in fact, Bush ran on the promise to renegotiate it, and Whitman was doing so when Bush stabbed her in the back and suddenly announced he was no longer interested in negotiating.

Farm subsidies were started as a liberial program and everyone else seems to have jumped on the band wagon.

There was a really good reason for farm subsidies. By paying farmers not to grow certain crops, the price was kept up and family farms stayed in business. In 1996, when Republicans removed many subsidies through the Freedom to Farm Act, farmers overproduced in order to make a profit, which drove prices down, which forced farmers to overproduce even more just to break even, which forced prices down still further, until the big agri-businesses picked up the family farms dirt cheap.

I guess you could argue it’s better to have a few huge corporations produce crops more efficiently, but it sure stinks for the family farmers.

Read all about it.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 4, 2005 10:24 AM

Jack,
You are right. It IS my fault that I’m not a millionaire now. It is also my fault that I’m not as healthy as I could be. It is also my fault I spend as much on gas that I do. I firmly believe that with a few exceptions, we are in the position in life that we are in because of choices we make in our lives. Had I studied harder in school instead of hanging with friends, I am sure I would have made more money in my life. If I had chosen not to start smoking, and had I chosen to eat healthier, I would probably be in better health. And if I chose to drive a hybred car or a super compact, I wouldn’t spend so much on gas. I made the choices I made and I’m reasonably happy with the outcome. Had I chosen to drop out of school or eat to the point of being obese, I would have no one to blame but myself for the outcome. And to be brutally frank about it, I don’t see it as my RESPONSIBILITY to pull everyone up to my level. That is a job for charity, and charity is not given at the point of a gun.

Posted by: tomd at October 4, 2005 06:11 PM

jo
i don’t think i have heard any conservative support farm subsidies. It is something today that only interferes with the large agri-factory business from buying out all the small farms and locking up their monopoly.

Unfortunately just about every politician, conservitive and liberial, supports subsidies of any kind. They’re another form of pork.

David R. Remer
Ron Brown, they probably would. Look at Katrina. They are handing out money like candy on Halloween to folks who chose to take the risk of living there AND bought insurance.

Well, I’d just have to disapoint them again.

I understand helping those who couldn’t afford insurance (unemployed, or disabled), but, homeowner’s insurance policies have coverage for temporary living expenses in the event of a covered total loss of one’s home. The great giveaway is for political reelection PR purposes and tax payers once again are raped for politics.

And the sad part is that the tax payers are getting so used to it that they don’t seem to notice anymore.

American Pundit
I guess you could argue it’s better to have a few huge corporations produce crops more efficiently, but it sure stinks for the family farmers.

Your right, it does suck for the family farms. But a lot of corporate farms are owned by families. There are also a lot of corporate farms owned by corporations like McDonalds, Green Giant, and the likes. It’s just a matter of time before there are more these corporate farms than corporate family farms. I personally don’t like it but, like you said huge coroporate farms CAN prodice crops more efficently and most likely cheaper that the smaller farms.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 4, 2005 06:18 PM

Another point I’d like to make is about employment. If I hire someone to do a job, I offer them a wage and the benefits that the company offer. The prospective employee has the option of accepting the job or to continue looking for the right job and right pay for them. If I am offering too little, I won’t get any employees and my company will fail. The point is that we BOTH hsve choices to make. I offer him a job and have to decide what his work is worth to me. He has to decide what his work is worth to him. The market will make the final decision on both his work and the way I treat my employees.

Posted by: tomd at October 4, 2005 06:21 PM

As a business owner I have alot of experience with the poor and have a good idea why they are in poverty. As a roofing contractor for the last 20 years I clearly see why people are in the their current condition. I have given hundreds (probably thousands)of people the opportunity to learn a trade and make a good life for themselves through hard work and perserverence and very few are willing to display either. A vass majority of those I hire are lazy and want something for nothing. The mentality of most workers is….I will work hard if you pay me enough. VERY few realize that it works the other way around.
I resisted hiring Mexican workers for a long because I wanted to give the home town boy the work. I have changed my mind and now only hire Mexicans because they always work hard and are greatful for the chance to work. Without exception, they work hard all day long, rearly take a break and never ask for a raise. They all understand that they must work hard first….then the rewards will come. The typical generation Xer does not understand that the strengh of their charactor will carry them out of poverty.
If people do not change their charactor they will stay in poverty.

Posted by: Tom S at October 4, 2005 07:14 PM

Tom S
The mentality of most workers is….I will work hard if you pay me enough. VERY few realize that it works the other way around.

I have a lot of job applicants tell me that they expect to recieve $15 to $20 an hour even though they don’t have any experiance in the feild. Most of these are kids just out of school and have no work experiance at all.
Most jobs in this area top out at around $10 to $12 an hour. The adverage starting pay for someone with no experiance is $7.50. If I was to break down my salary to a per hour amount I would be making around $9.50 an hour, some weeks less.
What makes these kids think that they’re worth more than I’m making when thay have no experiance?
I do have employees that make more than me but they’ve earned the pay rate they’re getting.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 4, 2005 08:00 PM

Ron……
You’re right. Thats why I started hiring Mexicans. I am sick of hiring these lazy white boys that think I own them something more than a chance. I just shake my head every time I hear about the enemployment rate because I know who they are. It seems to be a full time job simply finding the right people. I know people that have gone out of business because of labor problems. Those liberals that say there are no opportunities for the poor just dont know what they are talking about.

Posted by: Tom S at October 4, 2005 09:23 PM

American Pundit and Ron,

Yes, it stinks for the family farmer, but it also stinks for the larger society as well.

i am not a farmer myself. i grew up a ‘townie’ in a village of 200. Both my parents worked in factories and we kids tended a large garden… supplemented with raising the cast off runt piglets of area farmers for a season, selling the produce from our garden at a larger town’s farmer’s market off the back of our pick up truck and gleaning neighboring popcorn fields.

We all worked hard. Both my parent’s factories declared bankruptcy within 5 years of each other. Both my parents lost their pensions. (My dad had been two months from being able to retire) Since then both companies have come back under new names though the same management. One (Portland Cement) went through this process a couple times to buck responsibility to labor.

Rural communities took care of their own. i grew up with not a single policeman.. despite the fact that Chicago’s horrible gang anger kids lived worked and went to school alongside us in the town ‘orphanage’. i cannot think of a single house that HAD a lock. The ‘rich’ lived alongside us poor. They let us picnic and swim on their unused land. We gave them our excess fresh produce (so much excess it was often avoided)

i stroked out working my butt off third shift as a nursing home aid and ‘subcontractor’ landscape laborer. i have been married to one man 27 years with two grown children (both legitimate). i have no pension nor hope of any. Our rural agri-based town knew us through our volunteering and provided us both with EMS training. A win-win situation. My husband is struggling today to support us on meager paramedic wages.

Wages which are taxed to provide medicare, medicaid, welfare etc to urban populations, but are unavailable to rural families. (Try taking a day off work to get to another town 30 miles away without mass transit or the money to maintain an car to collect benefits.. every month)

“Progressives” demand rural societies fund programs for the urban poor beacuse urbanites have evolved to such great heights it is no longer feasible for them to stoop down to help their own neighbors. Progressives tell us we are inferior and do not know anything. We offer pristiine land and the pave it over with shelters and handicap walkways, stripping the trees and grading the land so killing the best shady spring habitat. They pass regulations that we cannot burn off the autumn stubble from our private land yet sponsor the same controlled burns on the land we gave them. Still, it is better than leaving the land to the appetites of the greedy agri-business or sophiticated urbanites fleeing the slums they created to come complain that the country doesn’t always smell like country fresh lysol spray.

“Conservatives” who are of course, cut of much higher moral cloth than we, take our sweat equity to pad their own bank accounts and claim we are ignorant and lazy. My own children both worked two and three part time jobs while in high school and their employers always commended their work. But i do not find it surprising that other children growing up watching their parents be made fools of, would not be interested in investing effort in any business because they now know that employers will steal anything they don’t take away in their pockets at the end of the day.

My hope is i will die young and quick so as not to burden my children— who grew up working and contributing to the household finances, both married (youngest just married upon her return from Iraq), neither has had children out of wedlock. None are on drugs or been divorced.

Tell me, what horrible flaw in our character has brought me to this state that i am merely a drag on society?

Posted by: jo at October 4, 2005 09:34 PM

btw, family farming’s disorganization lends itself to market influences. The markets could set the price. Soon with the corporate farms taking over your food prices will be at the mercy of corporations the same as oil prices are today.

Posted by: jo at October 4, 2005 09:46 PM

Jack,

Since we would be unwilling (or in some cases unable) to comply with demands such as the return or Andalusia, the pullout, economically and politically, of the West from the Arab world or a great increase in the price of oil (actually we are kind of doing that one), we are stuck with the conflict.

I was not suggesting that US should comply to all terrorists demands, it would be both fool and dangerous. But what could be done is removing the main arguments that allow these terrorists to brainwash newest recruts.
Like, well, reducing your Middle East’s oil fields control policy by being less dependent on oil. All oil. Improving your aid to muslman countries could help too, as the tsunami had proved…

Re Kyoto, Bush made a mistake. He should have done as most others have done. Sign up and understand that you won’t meet the goals.

Exactly. Embracing an utopian treaty is the real power behind Kyoto. It sends to others nations “We know we can’t reach these goals but we’ll try anyway because we want to [fight global warming]”.

“We want to”.
Instead, the lack of will in doing anything against climate changes is what the world see in US stance against Kyoto. Unwillness and “American Way of Life” selfishness.

The French are still Cartesians. They believe in what they consider the logical solution that fits all situations. They have a plan that is supposed to work into the future.

Well, sadly, it’s an old cliché.
Sure, we are still cartesians in many ways in our reflexion, but it doesn’t govern our action anymore. No enough time to do it “by the book”.
And it’s a long time since we thought we known the *ultimate* solution to a problem. Most of the time, we’re full of doubts, the kind that can block every move sometimes. Look at EU constitution for example.

What *I* think is a major difference between french and US is “unilateral vs multilateral”.
We think that alone we can’t accomplish much anymore or in short enough time.
Why? Well, first because we’re a small country after all. But also because the EU example show us what we can do while cooperating with others, things that we didn’t successfully achieve before. Like peace. Like building a better economic zone for all. Like an all new currency. Oh, yes, it’s not all that rosy but the ‘U’ in EU show the value of being united vs alone.
EU is our own small international body to us europeans. Yep, it’s too much bureaucratic sometimes ;-)

While the US seems, as the most powerfull nation, to think it can do all by itself better, quicker and, that’s important, the way you want. Suggestions or helps offered by others nations are often taken as offenses or orders, like you were considered weak or eventually not always right.
In short: arrogant and too self-trusting in a globalized world.

I know, that’s funny view coming from a french. French are known to be the most arrogant after all. Maybe we share more than we though?
;-)

Kyoto was a good example of the differences. Americans figured out that the treaty would not actually achieve reductions, especially because the big future polluters, like China, Indian and Brazil, were not included. So we rejected it.

I thought and many around the world think the same that US rejected Kyoto because, as the world largest polluter, it’ll hit your economy too hard.
Beside, it’s not a pragmatic but more a cartesian (can’t be achieved) decision, right?

Europeans saw the treaty as an important goal setting. They also knew they wouldn’t meet the goals and it wouldn’t solve the problem, but they saw it as a necessary first step.

Yes. An highly symbolic one, to wakeup and shake the world’s nations to open their eyes on climate changes.
In this, it can be considered a success.
The fact that the largest polluter rejected it so far is also highly symbolic around the world, but not in a good way.

Let me sum up. The preferred Euro style is to figure out what you want to accomplish and then make a rule to do that without sufficient regard to what actually can be accomplished in a practical sense. The U.S. style is to determine what actually can be done with the resources available and limits, without sufficient regard to setting a higher goal.

Sounds like utopian vs distopian!?
Where is “let’s go to moon in ten years” America?
Where goes your pioneer spirit? Don’t tell me you lost it!?

I think majors progresses are accomplished by fools/genius that take on utopian challenges.
Control fire!? Control these cows? Melt these minerals? What about a round wheel? Check if the earth is flat! Let’s fly in the sky. Control atom! Decypher the human DNA!
Nuclear Fusion power plants? alternatives to fossil fuel? Ah, sorry, not yet for these last.

Every next step is more costly than previous one.
Emitting less greenhouse gaz is more costly than don’t worry about it, no doubt. In short-term.
In long-term, it’ll cost us way more.
Can we afford to continue that way?

Last but not least, Kyoto was in 1998.
During these last 7 years, does your country reduce his CO2 emission itself?
AFAIK, nope, it’s even worse.

From EuroLand,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 4, 2005 09:50 PM

Kyoto = failed thinking Just one Volcano (that occurs without mans ability to stop it!) releases more pollution than man has emitted for the last forty years! Cools the earth ,and

Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.

AS FAR as the poor are concerned get off your asses and help someone who is. NOT just your dollars but your time! Then you will be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I know I help often thru my local church.

But wait I’m a right wing kookjob?’
We don’t care about people! We don’t feel or sympathize. Some of you are OBTUSE!

Now for Family Farms it’s about time for BIODIESEL. This idea is a win-win for industry as well as the american farmer. This growth market needs more incentives for National distribution. This wiil lower our dependance on oil to boot!

Posted by: wingnut at October 4, 2005 10:08 PM

Your breating that volcanic ash right now!!!

Posted by: wingnut at October 4, 2005 10:10 PM

Nobody said you are a drag a society and I certainly didnt mean to imply that life is always easy, only that charactor is an essential element for any degree of success and prospetity. There have been many people to rise above their current conditions and have more.
I know what it is like to live poor. I do not even have a high school diploma and many told me that I would never make it without an education from the establishment. Now others would consider me a part of the “privileged few” that doesnt care about or understand the poor. I am in the catogory that some would describe as one who must have hurt people to get where I am.
Most business owners that I know have worked their tail off without obtaining their success off the backs of others, but rather became successful through their own hard work.

Posted by: Tom S at October 4, 2005 10:18 PM

Houdini…….

Leave it to the Europeans to sign kyoto with no intention of following it. Do you think the US could get away with???? Name one European country that the world would give a rats ass what they do or what agreements they break ? No body seemed to care that the UN doesnt unforce their own resolutions, but the US makes one wrong move and WATCH OUT

Posted by: patriot at October 4, 2005 10:27 PM

patriot,

Leave it to the Europeans to sign kyoto with no intention of following it.

Funny that many think that only EU signed Kyoto!
Look at this color-speaking map to open your (both) eyes to reality of Kyoto Protocol agreement.

Do you think the US could get away with???? Name one European country that the world would give a rats ass what they do or what agreements they break ?

France, when we broke the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by resuming nukes testing for a final test program in the 90’s.
Remember? Here we still do.
The World Communities were red angry about it. That was indeed a wrong move from frenchies, IMO.

But, yes, as the world auto-proclamed leader power, your country get most of the spotlight compared to any other nations. That’s the price of leadership.

No body seemed to care that the UN doesnt unforce their own resolutions

I care and I’m not alone according to the raising voices asking for a UN reform. Fact is several UN resolutions were never unforced because of vetoes. US vetoed more UN resolutions than any others veto-powers permanent members in recent history. Many where related to Middle East crisis. Read vetoed resolutions titles, it’s interesting…
See also fun facts to show and tell at your local coffee shop.
So, who’s blocking resolutions unforcement the most here?

… but the US makes one wrong move and WATCH OUT

I guess it’s more because:
- US current government refuse to recognized being wrong *ever* in their foreign policy
- US ask and even contest everyone else the world leadership on every global subject. With some valid reasons, I agree. But don’t be suprised then when RotW (Rest Of The World) looks at what’s US is doing from their world leadership!
- Most of the time, US was moving right, not wrong. You got us by suprise. It’s worrying us. World people stop understanding your country…

BTW, you seem to agree that was a wrong move, right?

- From EuroLand,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 5, 2005 05:46 AM

patriot,

Leave it to the Europeans to sign kyoto with no intention of following it.

Funny how Kyoto opposers think only Europeans signed Kyoto Protocol. Give a look at this colorful map to open your eyes on the reality.

Name one European country that the world would give a rats ass what they do or what agreements they break ?

France, when we broke from Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by resuming our nukes tests for a final program in the 90’s.
Remember? Everyone were angry at us, want to boycott our products, etc.
We deserved it, IMHO, as it was a very wrong move from Chirac.

No body seemed to care that the UN doesnt unforce their own resolutions

I care and I’m not alone according to the raising voices asking for UNSC voting reform. Also, many resolutions can’t be unforced due to veto. Who use his veto power the most? Yep, that’s USA.
Check how many time your country vetoed resolutions, many of them focusing on Middle East crisis. Go figure.

… but the US makes one wrong move and WATCH OUT

Hey, you put yourself under the spotlight by being, asking and even sometimes contesting other world body to be the World leader.
Don’t be suprised then that RotW (Rest Of The World) actually looks at what you are doing, that’s come with being Number One.
And your recent foreign policy moves were very strange, disturbing and seems to worry RotW.

Oh, BTW, so you agree going to Iraq was a wrong move?

From EuroLand,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 5, 2005 09:30 AM

A bigger version of the colorful map of Kyoto Protocol countries position.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 5, 2005 09:45 AM

I agree with the personal responsibility thing. Too many people expect others to do what they should be doing themselves. I can’t stand hearing people complain about the price of gas, too. Don’t want to pay higher prices for gas? Rike a bike, walk, or take a bus. Stop complaining and do something!! And all those people who keep complaining about the media “corrupting” their kids with overly sexual programming? Turn off the damn TV!! Throw out the X-Box!! Take some responsibility, people!

Posted by: Bill Hayden at October 5, 2005 02:25 PM

EuroLand…..

I didnt say that Europe was the only ones that signed Kyoto. Kyoto is a bad idea for the US…you see, we do not want to be under the direction of the UN or anyone else for that matter (expecially France) when it come to our own policies. Yea I know, we are arrogant in your eyes but that just fine with us.
Kyoto would cause the loss of millions of jobs and cost billions of dollars, and for what? The hoax of global warming?
You know as well as I do that the countries in the UN would love nothing more than to see the US suffer in any way possible. I cant wait for the day that we get leaders with enough balls to pull out of the UN.

Posted by: PATRIOT at October 5, 2005 05:28 PM

wingnut
But wait I’m a right wing kookjob?’
We don’t care about people! We don’t feel or sympathize.

Your right we don’t care, that’s why I’ve offered jobs to welfare recieptiances, because we hate them so much.

Now for Family Farms it’s about time for BIODIESEL. This idea is a win-win for industry as well as the american farmer. This growth market needs more incentives for National distribution. This wiil lower our dependance on oil to boot!

I’ve heard some talk about Biodiesel but cann’t seem to get any information on it.
Do you know of a web site or something I could log onto?

patriot
Leave it to the Europeans to sign kyoto with no intention of following it. Do you think the US could get away with????

NOT A CHANCE!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 5, 2005 05:55 PM

Ron check out these sites. they got me started?

http://www.dieselforum.org/
http://www.biodiesel.org/

I have found that when I run it my truck smells different!

Posted by: Wingnut at October 5, 2005 11:01 PM

Patriot,

Kyoto is a bad idea for the US…you see, we do not want to be under the direction of the UN or anyone else for that matter (expecially France) when it come to our own policies.

Kyoto Protocol is about fighting global warming. I didn’t know climate changes stop at countries borders. In fact, I’m sure they didn’t.

Also, explain me how you enforce your own policies on storms, hurricanes, tsunami, iceberg, heat waves and others climate big events?
Calling your local weather office?

It’s not about your own policies, it’s about global environment policies.
Your country is only 4% of earth human population.
Start thinking about the 96% others.

Your country current population, like mine and any others Kyoto Protocol members, will die one day or another. No doubt about that (One day your average lifespan will be zero).
Start thinking that your grand grand grand children will have to live on this little, screwed planet because we were so selfish that we polute like mad in just 50 years time span. And I includes myself and all europeans obvioulsy in “we”.

I dunno for you, but I’ve a child. So I care for their future.

Kyoto would cause the loss of millions of jobs and cost billions of dollars, and for what?

Does any of you guys think that reducing polution could be cheap!?!
Wake up. It’ll cost your country far more than any other country because your country choose as energy policy to waste it like mad and in the process became the largest world poluter. Period.

Do you think it doesn’t cost anything to the countries who choose to reduce their polution rate?
Do you think building all these nuclear power plants after the ‘73 oil crisis doesn’t cost anything to France???
Do you think the countries that are actually reducing significantly their emissions do it at no cost!?!

Your country just choose, very selfness, to postpone this cost ad vitam, hoping the Rest of The World will do the rest. Dream on, even if politically I doubt this could work, technically it’s impossible until your poluter rank drop several positions.

Whatever, and sadly, everyone will pay in the end of this game with the planet’s climate. Not only americans.

The hoax of global warming?

Oh. Oh, okay.
You should have tell me this before.
I’ve just wasted my time arguing about a unperfect but still one possible way to fight what you consider being hoax.

As I consider myself “the hoax of global warming” mantra a political crime agaisnt humanity, I’ll stop argue with you about USA’s position on Kyoto Protocol right now.

You know as well as I do that the countries in the UN would love nothing more than to see the US suffer in any way possible.

As most countries are UN members too these days, I guess you’re just paranoid. Or everyone except americans really hate americans? Go figure, then!
No, no, you’re just paranoid.

I cant wait for the day that we get leaders with enough balls to pull out of the UN.

Don’t you heard? Some research show that polution put men’s balls at risk due to increased risk of cancer and infertility. So your future leaders may better protect their by moving… on the moon!
No, wait. This research is a hoax too.

Hoax my ass.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 6, 2005 11:50 AM

Houdoin………..

You are right about one thing, you wasted your time talking about your view on global warming. Its a bunch of BS. Sure we need to cut down on polution and we have done that over the last 25 years and dont need the help of the UN and their bad ideas.
I am not paranoid, just realistic. A paronoid person is motivated by fear and I just dont see fear as being my motivation for standing up to the UN,which in my view, is simply corrupt.

Posted by: PATRIOT at October 6, 2005 07:04 PM

Patriot,

Sure we need to cut down on polution and we have done that over the last 25 years

Please, do youself a favor: look at what your own (american, neither an UN agency neither french) Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center graph of Annual Carbon Emissions by Region. See how this dark red line is skyrocking?
It’s very visible that after 73’s oil crisis USA and Western Europe emissions dropped during a few years. Then USA’s goes up again. And still doing it…

You’re right about the last 25 years span, though.
What? This curve is an hoax too?
Yeah, right.

BTW, I’m sad to see Western Europe since the same period only succeed minimal drop emissions.

I am not paranoid, just realistic. A paronoid person is motivated by fear

par·a·noid:
adj.

1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.

2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.

n.
One affected with paranoia.

You show extreme distrust to the rest of World’s countries. By second definition, you’re paranoid.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 7, 2005 10:33 AM

Pollution is not simply defined as carbon emmitions. Unless of course your cause is global warming.
The key words in the definition of paranoia is “extreme” and “unreasonable” fear. There is such a thing as healthy and reasonable fear. Me paronoid? Im shaking in my boots.

Posted by: PATRIOT at October 8, 2005 02:23 AM

Patriot,

Pollution is not simply defined as carbon emmitions.

Indeed. But CO2 is #1 of man-made GreenHouse gases (GHG), hence my focus on it.

Unless of course your cause is global warming.

CO2 has the highest GWP (Global Warming Potential) of all GHG. Anyway, it’s not *my* cause, but it’s *your* hoax. Done arguing about it.

The key words in the definition of paranoia is “extreme” and “unreasonable” fear.

Easy, you just drop the “or distrust of others” from definition. Or choose to ignore it. Self-censorship?
Anyway, an “extreme and unreasonable fear” *alone* is phobia, while paranoia is really about distrust of others.

Dictionaries are hoaxes too, yeah, I know.

There is such a thing as healthy and reasonable fear.

Agreed. That’s even its purpose according to many biologists.

Me paronoid? Im shaking in my boots.

Why I’m not suprised at all you’re actually wearing boots?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 10, 2005 09:06 AM

Phillipe

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and ordinary black soot contributes more to global warming. We concentrate too much on CO2.

Posted by: Jack at October 10, 2005 01:42 PM

Jack,

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and ordinary black soot contributes more to global warming. We concentrate too much on CO2.

Yes, methane is 21 time worst than CO2 on global warming, but its atmospheric lifetime is way shorter: around 12 years vs 200 to 500 years for CO2. And CH4 (methane) emissions starts to stabilize since last 5 years, when carbon dioxines are skyrocking.

This curve get more focus for good reason, I guess.

Anyway, CO2 and CH4 are hoaxy molecules, so who care?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 11, 2005 09:13 AM

I don’t think that this article is fair. Sometimes, when you have no alternatives, how can one not be poor? See the article “The Working Poor” on Cq researcher. It describes some people who have jobs, have a family, and are continualy poor.
About high school. What if you’re afraid to go? What if your high school is infested with gangs and drugs and you can’t go anywhere else because your family has no money? Which is more powerful in a split-second, fear or need to succeed?
And what if the job you have is not paying enough, but you know you can’t get work anywhere else? Do you have any idea how easy and tempting it is to deal drugs?
Temptation surely supercedes raw theory.

Posted by: Cypher at October 17, 2005 12:52 PM