Read the article in its entirety. Post your views on Trump´s foreign policy when he was in office.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Paris Climate Accords:

National Economic Research associates says economy would lose 3 trillion dollars.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/05/president-trump-leave-bad-paris-agreement-john-barrasso-editorials-debates/4170938002/

Countries not meetng requirements:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/578288/even-the-eu-is-treating-the-paris-climate-agreement-as-a-joke/

Even sites thinking they accords didnt do enough agree there is 0 penalty to missing.
https://medium.com/in-search-of-leverage/5-reasons-why-the-paris-agreement-is-a-joke-and-how-we-can-fix-it-4b636409bb05

Why should we attempt to be a part of something others who sign up for dont care to follow?

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Paris Climate Accord

@MichaelElpers

Thank you for researching this. While likely that other countries did not pay into this as much as the US, the US and China are the largest contributors of CO2 emissions. Also, keep in mind that contributions go by our GDP - the US has one of the highest GDPs. I have not researched this yet, but your question ¨Why should we attempt to be a part of something others who sign up for don´t care to follows?¨ is defeatist IMO. So, even though something that America is largely responsible for in hurting other countries due to their excessive CO2 emissions, we should just give up on it, take it away thus putting future generations at risk, because .... wah we´re paying too much? To me, extremely lazy-minded thinking - transactional only - with nothing else put in its place to address this pressing issue? I will follow up on this with more info. Thank you Michael. The above is my opinion only.

MayCaesar

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

Speaking for oneself is great, but just that, opinion. Supporting your opinions with information puts things in a more realistic and enlightening perspective. Come on, be realistic and fair. He cited nine entries, and simply refused any information to support his opinions. I never put words in anyone´s mouth: I simply ask for support of one´s words.Yes, I would have loved to continue this further for those able to put aside their biases for the good of the country. Michael did not want to continue.

Are you the Debate site monitor? Well okay then, monitor others´ debate styles also then. I´ve read lots of crazy on here. There are plenty of infractions I see on this site that you could be monitoring. I did much research on my post and cited many credible sites to back up my information. All for naught. Perhaps I´m in the wrong place on this site.

"It is just an opinion" is an empty sentence. Anything anyone says is an opinion - however, there are lazy and uninformed opinions, and there are opinions that are a consequence of decades of hard thinking and studying. The fact that I do not cite specific passages from scientific literature every couple of sentences does not imply that what I have is "just an opinion" and nothing more.

You might be in the wrong place, indeed. This is a debate website. In a live debate people do not have access to the Internet: they exchange opinions based on their knowledge to date. This is simply an online version of that, with typing replacing speaking. When I listen to you or to anyone else, I first and foremost examine the validity of reasoning: do your conclusions follow from your assumptions, and are you consistent in deriving them? Then, once this has been established, we can start examining the actual sources and testing the assumptions. This is a latter stage of the discussion.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: And I said id take them a couple at a time because i want to know your greatest disputes.

@MichaelElpers

And I said Id take them a couple at a time because i want to know your greatest disputes.

For example when I say: The thing about the Paris Climate accords is there is absolutely zero punishment for failing to meet the proposed actions. So China and other polluters can sign in but ignore it completely. Its a dog and pony show.

You are correct that there is no formal punishment for failing to meet the proposed actions that is the reason 196 countries are on board with this - no punishment and voluntary goals. Because they know that climate change mitigation could no longer be kicked down the road so they´ve agreed to contribute in whatever way possible. However, I believe every two years they must submit a record of mitigation and their national climate action plans (NDCs). This is a good faith agreement, a globalist agreement. However, its success largely depends on the US, China and India, the largest greenhouse gas producers. And admittedly a good faith in all world leaders is lofty but it´s a hopeful start made through compromise and negotiation. Ya know, diplomacy. It is a global problem and takes a collective effort. The PCA was drafted in 2015 and went into effect 2016. So not sure what countries at the time of trump´s presidency did not contribute their fair share or was this just his sensationalist talking point? 196 countries agree that taking action to curb climate change is real and urgent and we need to mitigate its damages before its too late. Trump took America out of the agreement along with Syria and Nicaragua. Easy to do, and looked good for him as it was a short term gain with no long term solution to a complex problem.

Let me know how mant degrees of heating this is supposed to prevent. Competition drives innovation and making cleaner and more efficient fuels helps significantly as the majority of countries cant afford expensive green energy.

The general scientific consensus is that any rise in global temperatures more than 2 degrees Celsius will be catastrophic for the Earth that would cause severe natural disasters, a melted Arctic and possibly other mass extinctions. The agreement’s ultimate goal is not going beyond the global warming rise this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius. While the 0.5-degree difference seems minimal to the layman, it would dramatically impact low-lying nations and coral reefs. Competition drives innovation, yes. Fossil fuels emit harmful pollutants causing harmful diseases like asthma, bronchitis, heart disease and lung cancers. There is no disputing this and there is much scientific evidence that clean energy will create even more jobs than fuel efficiency in the long term. The PCA is a good faith agreement and countries every two years need to submit their contributions and not fear punishment. The article from the Washington Examiner was 2018 and titled ¨Even the EU if treating the Paris climate agreement as a joke¨ - the title right there is biased and suspicious. It states that China lies about its emissions. I can´t find anything on this, but you have a beef with one country and you exit from an important global pact? We have climate catastrophes weekly, and we spend billions after every catastrophe to clean them up. Does that make sense? Why not mitigate before it´s too late? IMO, Trump´s plan of exiting this global plan was short sighted and one that sought short term benefits but sacrificed long term solutions. Penny wise and pound foolish? Transactional leadership is Trump´s leadership style, soften the regulations on fossil fuels (more campaign $ for repubs), get out of agreements, look tough and get the accolades with no long term benefits to society. And then what? No plan in place. Just put a check in the box. Done. How do we make cleaner and more efficient fuels work for us? The discussion of fossil fuels is old and quite frankly the majority of the world has moved on - and so have 196 nations. Our school districts are using electric school buses, city buses are electric, solar panels are up, wind turbines are flying, electric vehicle chargers are increasing. We must be proactive. We owe it to future generations.

The below article explains we simply cannot afford no action on climate change.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/paris-climate-agreement-countries

¨Research has shown that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of reducing carbon pollution. While President Trump claimed that the Paris Agreement would cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion by 2040 and 2.7 million jobs by 2025. One study suggest that the U.S. would lose as much as $6 trillion in the coming decades if it didn’t meet its Paris climate goals. Additionally, global GDP would decline by 25% if the world did not meet the goals laid out in the agreement. Additionally, the clean energy sector in the United States employs about 3 million workers— about 14 times that of the oil, gas, coal, and other fossil fuel industry employment. Further investments into clean, renewable energy industries could create more than 500,000 jobs by 2030.¨

I made about 3 points here I dont know which ones you disagree with. If you dispute them I want to know why.

On no new wars you said you agreed he had no new wars. Then you wanted to show he lied about something although that had nothing to do with my claim. I never stated anything about 72 years and never said trump has never lied.

No, you did not. They were simply comments to highlight Trump´s propensity to lying and bombastic behaviors. It is true there were no wars under Trump. But yet to be known is how much his Foreign Policy left us vulnerable to our enemies.

Paris Climate Accords:

National Economic Research associates says economy would lose 3 trillion dollars.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/05/president-trump-leave-bad-paris-agreement-john-barrasso-editorials-debates/4170938002/

This 2019 USA Today Opinion article is a projection of losses only. And worth noting, the author, John Bassaro, R, WY Senator, has much to lose if fossil fuel contributions from the energy sector don´t come his way during his election year.

¨According to the National Economic Research Associates, if we met all of our commitments as part of the Paris climate agreement, it would cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040. We don’t need to cripple our economy to protect our environment.¨

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/joe-biden-jobs-paris-climate-agreement-fact-check/6671345002/

The above site is a very conservative Austin American-Statesman article stating that the projections of losing 3T and 6.5M jobs is accurate but it is only half the picture. Takeaway is the losses are accurate projections but failed to account for all the offsetting job gains and GDP growth that will be obtained transitioning from fossil fuel energy to clean energy. Over a million Americans are employed in the fossil fuel sector, while close to 500K millions jobs ALREADY are in solar and wind. Solar and wind is just 10% of the energy mix - these clean energy jobs will only increase in time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/climate/tax-breaks-oil-gas-us.html

Actually, it´s the fossil fuel energy sector that is sucking up subsidies. Oil and gas companies still receive billions of dollars in tax breaks to industries that enjoy record profits. Handouts to big oil for quid pro quo campaign $ is what´s happening. The energy sector is enjoying HUGE record profits post Covid under the guise of ¨supply chain issues¨, etc. The energy sector is profiteering off Americans.This money should be going toward clean energy. That´s the future. But republicans don´t want to vote against their campaign contributors. Follow the money.

Countries not meetng requirements:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/578288/even-the-eu-is-treating-the-paris-climate-agreement-as-a-joke/

Again, the title is biased...adding influential language ¨is a joke¨. A better article could have been used here that provided substantial proof on the countries not meeting requirements. But I´ll entertain it. All countries including the major greenhouse gas producers (US, China, India, Russia) are simply not hitting their (voluntary) target reduction goals. Also noted was that China lies about its emissions. But does that warrant an immediate exit from a global agreement that benefits all humankind? It was a defeatist, short term and lazy-minded solution to a very complex global problem -l exiting. This was a move made by Trump to ensure Republicans´ fossil fuel energy sector $ contributions remain in place - quid pro quo - we loosen regulations for you, you give us $ to be reelected.

Even sites thinking they accords didnt do enough agree there is 0 penalty to missing.
https://medium.com/in-search-of-leverage/5-reasons-why-the-paris-agreement-is-a-joke-and-how-we-can-fix-it-4b636409bb05

Again, America, China, Russia, India are all not meeting their goals. This is not a question of other countries not contributing? Again these ¨contributions¨ are there own goals.

Why should we attempt to be a part of something others who sign up for dont care to follow?

While it´s true that industrialized countries have pledged 1B annually to developing countries as they need help in adapting to global warming and the move from fossil fuels, there is still much more $ needed, this ¨climate finance" helps countries make the switch from fossil fuels to clean energy, this does not mean countries do not care to follow through. This means it is a recognized global problem that needs global solution. It means they need financial help to meet their energy goals. And of what 196 nations don´t care to contribute to the PCA? Contribution is the country´s own goals to meet energy standards. Because SOME do not have the resources to meet their goals, this does not warrant exiting from an important global initiative that is working for most nations.

From what I´ve read and my own opinion: 196 countries are fully on board with climate change initiatives. It is a new initiative and lacking in up to date analyses. All countries are on board with transitioning from fossil fuels (causing many health problems and global climate catastrophes) to a cleaner, and in the long term, cheaper clean energy. This requires a collective effort, continuous commitment, and sometimes monetary boosts to poorer countries. As I see it, the only thing in the way of the Paris Climate Accord long term goals is the Fossil Fuel Industry and republicans who simply cannot allow their dark money fossil fuel company contributions to dissolve. They need these campaign contributions to win. To continue receiving these contributions from the energy sector, they must continue fighting clean energy and supporting dirty fossil fuels. Trump´s transactional leadership style seems to be ... find a grievance (in this case a good faith agreement), pick at it, sensationalize it, then take as little action as needed (exiting) to claim the short term goal. Just another policy that Trump undid of Obama´s - destroy anything Obama put in place. IMO, he was humiliated at one of Obama´s White House Correspondents Dinners. Revenge is his game. Humiliation is the devil to a narcissist. Narcissism is his power.

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

Appreciate the advice. I actually stated my opinions and proactively followed them up with support.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Im not sure how much of a good faith agreement it is if not taken seriously by all particpants. Kind of like how countries in NATO were given a pass not paying what they agreed to. Just doesnt seem to have much substance to it.

Next I dont have a love affair with fossil fuels. I come from a perspective where I dont want subsidies given to fossil fuels or renewables, I want it to be driven by the market. More efficient and eliminates more of the corruption which as you stated "follow the money" for republicans, that occurs on all sides.
This Ted talk even highlights fossil fuel companies were incentivized to back renewables like solar because its difficulties of efficiency and integration keep fossil fuels more relevant.

If your sources on improvement in the economy from renewables, lets just prove it. Remove market barriers and subsidies and the market will naturally follow the growth.

From my perspective it seems that you think removing us from the climate agreement automatically means we will continue eliminating carbon emissions, however during Trumps presidency it seems the downward trajectory mostly continued. The results are nearly thr same so who cares about the accords.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=In 2021, U.S. greenhouse gas,above 1990 levels in 2007.

"Over a million Americans are employed in the fossil fuel sector, while close to 500K millions jobs ALREADY are in solar and wind. Solar and wind is just 10% of the energy mix - these clean energy jobs will only increase in time."
To me this statement shows the incredible inefficiency of wind and solar. Your saying this sector requires nearly half the amount of jobs as fossil fuels while only contributing to 10% of energy production vs 80% for fossil fuels. Thats not cheap.
Climate alarmists may say who cares about the cost but thats an extremly privledged perspective. Im a put up or sh*t up type of individual. If youre worried about climate extinction dont hide behind government tax system. Cost is not a limiting factor? Well then donate your private equity.

Lastly heres a Ted talk describing the challenges of renewables and my belief in Nuclear energy. Like you said "follow the money" so why are we promoting low efficiency, environmentally damaging renewables instead of nuclear if our main goal is reduce emissions and save the environment? Curious

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Im not sure how much of a good faith agreement it is if not taken seriously by all particpants.

@MichaelElpers

Im not sure how much of a good faith agreement it is if not taken seriously by all particpants. Kind of like how countries in NATO were given a pass not paying what they agreed to. Just doesnt seem to have much substance to it.

I´m not sure why you conclude it´s not being taken seriously by all participants? Though it is a good faith agreement, it IS a multinational, legally binding contract that was adopted in 2015 by all 196 nations. I´ve read that all nations are on board, unfortunately they´ve not all met their intended goals (set voluntarily), but they continue to take the Paris Climate Accord very seriously. No substance to it? Reducing CO2 emissions is detrimental to our future generations. Hopefully you are not suggesting that NATO does not have much substance? You may tend toward nationalism more than globalism, but I´m not sure if you meant NATO or PCA did/does not have substance. If so, I strongly disagree with both intended assertions.

Next I dont have a love affair with fossil fuels. I come from a perspective where I dont want subsidies given to fossil fuels or renewables, I want it to be driven by the market. More efficient and eliminates more of the corruption which as you stated "follow the money" for republicans, that occurs on all sides.

I disagree with this. Free market subsidies come from within the market itself with the main benefactor being the private company owner and shareholders. Unbridled capitalism has run amuk in the US. One needs only to look at the energy sector now and how the energy sector is profiteering off of Americans. And while the free market sounds good, and subsidies (supposedly) support innovation and competition, they also create market distortions by strongly favoring their own interests. Have you´ve researched the current energy sector and their profits pre- and post Covid? The incentive is insatiable profit gains helped with tax break loopholes, shareholder interests. Government subsidies are granted through legislation or direct funding with its interests driven by the public. The goal being reducing greenhouse gas emission, achieving energy independence and stimulating economic growth. This is granted via tax credits, grants, loans or investments in R&D.

This Ted talk even highlights fossil fuel companies were incentivized to back renewables like solar because its difficulties of efficiency and integration keep fossil fuels more relevant.

If your sources on improvement in the economy from renewables, lets just prove it. Remove market barriers and subsidies and the market will naturally follow the growth.

I will watch and respond to this TED talk later.

From my perspective it seems that you think removing us from the climate agreement automatically means we will continue eliminating carbon emissions, however during Trumps presidency it seems the downward trajectory mostly continued. The results are nearly thr same so who cares about the accords.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=In 2021, U.S. greenhouse gas,above 1990 levels in 2007.

It sounds like you mean if we exit the PCA just how does this affect our CO2 emissions? I read your attached article. During Trump´s presidency you say the downward trajectory mostly continued. The article explains that many things attribute to the levels of greenhouse gases like economic activity, the population, our consumption patterns, energy prices, land use and technology so there are many things to consider. During Trump´s presidency, it clearly states that the downward trajectory in greenhouse gases was a direct result of changes due to Covid (less transportation = less CO2 emissions).

Key Points

In 2021, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,340 million metric tons (14.0 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents. This total represents a 2.3 percent decrease since 1990, down from a high of 15.8 percent above 1990 levels in 2007. The sharp decline in emissions from 2019 to 2020 was largely due to the impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on travel and economic activity. Emissions increased from 2020 to 2021 by 5.2 percent, driven largely by an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion due to economic activity rebounding after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Figure 1)

It does seem there is a decline of greenhouse gases overall starting in the early 90s. This was about the time Gore as VP was vehement about global warming and climate change. Thank goodness we´ve educated ourselves and have been trying to understand the complexities and dangers of climate change. Your statement, the results are nearly the same so who cares about the accords... has raised some curiosities 1) who cares? Then why are you saying that it was a great foreign policy move to exit if it was so inconsequential? The exit was minimal work for maximum repercussions. 2) The results are the same .... there has been increasing awareness and knowledge on clean energy but more is needed and it requires an all hands on deck approach as it is a global problem.

"Over a million Americans are employed in the fossil fuel sector, while close to 500K millions jobs ALREADY are in solar and wind. Solar and wind is just 10% of the energy mix - these clean energy jobs will only increase in time."
To me this statement shows the incredible inefficiency of wind and solar. Your saying this sector requires nearly half the amount of jobs as fossil fuels while only contributing to 10% of energy production vs 80% for fossil fuels. Thats not cheap.

While the fossil fuel sector still dominates energy production, clean energy is fairly new but gaining traction. 500K million jobs ALREADY in solar and wind. Clean energy research is new and this is the tip of the iceberg only as more jobs will be created with more work being needed in the solar and wind fields. It does not in any way state the incredible inefficiency. I don´t believe you read the statement correctly. Clean energy is the trajectory America and the world is going in.

Climate alarmists may say who cares about the cost but thats an extremly privledged perspective. Im a put up or sh*t up type of individual. If youre worried about climate extinction dont hide behind government tax system. Cost is not a limiting factor? Well then donate your private equity.

Of course this is a costly initiative. Privileged perspective? You think believing that spending on our future generation´s future health is privileged? Interesting perspective. The facts are in - we must combat CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. Combating climate change is LONG overdue...we´ve had decades of information on this. Change is costly. Change is cumbersome and uncomfortable. Change is necessary. Donate private equity? Now THAT´S privilege. Is this your distinction between government and private subsidies? You said that ¨ I dont want subsidies given to fossil fuels or renewables, I want it to be driven by the market. ¨ You think fossil fuel energy is not costly and not benefitting from the government? The below article suggests differently.

https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion

As the world struggles to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and parts of Asia, Europe and the United States swelter in extreme heat, subsidies for oil, coal and natural gas are costing the equivalent of 7.1 percent of global gross domestic product. That’s more than governments spend annually on education (4.3 percent of global income) and about two thirds of what they spend on healthcare (10.9 percent).

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds

Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund.

Lastly heres a Ted talk describing the challenges of renewables and my belief in Nuclear energy. Like you said "follow the money" so why are we promoting low efficiency environmentally damaging renewables instead of nuclear if our main goal is reduce emissions and save the environment? Curious

I will definitely listen and watch your TED talk link later and respond later.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Legally binding around voluntary goals that dont have to be met are good faith and substantive?
Try getting a contract like that anywhere else. Agreements made in good faith are met, thats what would display good faith.
What i mean by no substance is there are no consequences for not meeting the agreements.

Im not sure how you think demand driven competition is more cronny or corrupt than subsidie agreements made with government politicians. And it doesnt seem like you meet your own criteria here you complain about republican subsidies, tax breaks, etc to fossil fuels but agree with the ones backing "green energy" sources. It's authoritarian thinking. Free market bad, but also government support should only go to sources we can get a large enough mob to support. Government subsidies to things i disagree with are bad.

Regarding the C02 emission. It stated the SHARP decrease was due to covid. It didnt come to the conclusion there would be no decrease or downward trajectory.

Why overall do I think it was good to pull from accords If I hold the agreement to little regard? First because it frees us up to pursue what we believe is best and second because i dont enjoy being in agreements that dont hold participants accountable to it. Its phony.

I think you need to reread my opinion here regarding inefficiency. It was not about number jobs being less. Its about the green energy taking close to half as many jobs to contribute 10% of energy production compared to 80%. That is inefficiency. By the numbers that would be 5 people producing 10 pizzas (green energy) vs 5 people producing 40 pizzas (fossil fuels).

Regarding privledge. You think the poorest people have the luxury to care about climate change? Im saying climate alarmists should subsidize with their own money and lifestyle. People say moneys not a factor, or we need to sacrafice while not being willing to contribute their own money. That is hypocritical.
And again you keep pointing out fossil fuel subsidies but I dont agree with those.

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

I just want to chime in and clarify that "free market subsidies" is an oxymoron. By definition, free market is one run by private individuals without the governmental intrusions, hence governmental subsidies are incompatible with it. The idea that these subsidies come from the market itself is not just objectively wrong (they come from the government instead), but it also does not make logical sense: market cannot subsidize itself. It would be like grabbing oneself and trying to lift oneself off the ground.

The US steadily has become less and less capitalist, with the government nowadays arresting people trying to sell hot dogs off their own lawns. In the past the US was firmly number 1 in terms of economic freedom in the world - nowadays it rarely makes into top-20.

I do not know what world people thinking that the US has "unbridled capitalism" live in. Unless their definition of capitalism involves government running everything? 90% of the time you go to a hospital, 90% of the time you take a student loan, 90% of the time you start a business - you go through the government. There is virtually nothing you can do economy-wise without getting explicit approval from the government (and usually handing it over a hefty check). This is not capitalism.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

I was confused by that too. Whats a free market subsidie? I normally call those private investments.

Delilah6120

@MichaelElpers

Legally binding around voluntary goals that dont have to be met are good faith and substantive?
Try getting a contract like that anywhere else. Agreements made in good faith are met, thats what would display good faith.
What i mean by no substance is there are no consequences for not meeting the agreements.

When the PCA was being drafted the legal binding was a hot debate amongst countries. Obama when backing this treaty could not hold the US accountable for certain outcomes - if it did Obama would have needed 2/3rd senate approval which was then controlled by republicans. It would not have passed if it were legally binding for the US. Thanks to republicans who are simply living in the past, unwilling to adapt to change, and beholden to the oil sector for their campaign contributions. So there you have it. The accord legally compels countries to make their own determined contributions (NDCs) - the goal being net-zero emissions by 2050, limiting warming to 2 deg. celsius. Countries are also required to report on their progress at COP conferences. So yes, there is a long way to go with the agreement - no doubt. But it is a start and a transnational one with 196 nations on board. It will be tweaked as it is only 8 years old. But I still wonder why this was considered a great achievement by Trump? Do you believe that climate change is causing significant problems across the globe? Do you believe in the science?

Im not sure how you think demand driven competition is more cronny or corrupt than subsidie agreements made with government politicians. And it doesnt seem like you meet your own criteria here you complain about republican subsidies, tax breaks, etc to fossil fuels but agree with the ones backing "green energy" sources. It's authoritarian thinking. Free market bad, but also government support should only go to sources we can get a large enough mob to support. Government subsidies to things i disagree with are bad.

Are you asking whether I trust Corporation owners driven by profit and their bottom lines over the institution of government? That would be a resounding NO. You trust that owners of these companies are honest, truthful and won´t profiteer off Americans? Michael do me a favor and look at the profits of the energy sector and all other wealthy corps (Apple, Facebook, Amazon) pre and post covid and tell me that THEY should be more trusted than the government. I didn´t complain about subsidies, I mentioned that fossil fuel corp. WERE receiving subsidies. Look, if something needs subsidizing, I´m okay with that. Whether its fossil fuel energy (from way past) or now green energy. That´s authoritarian? Come on. Are you doing the flimflam thing? So, if the honorable Michael Elpers disagrees with something, then America should not subsidize it? Do I want something subsidized in the most effective and least expensive way - yes of course. Does bureaucracy get in the way? Of course. Is there too much government? Yes. But I trust the workings of a collective several more than the workings of one greedy king.

Regarding the C02 emission. It stated the SHARP decrease was due to covid. It didnt come to the conclusion there would be no decrease or downward trajectory.

Yes.

Why overall do I think it was good to pull from accords If I hold the agreement to little regard? First because it frees us up to pursue what we believe is best and second because i dont enjoy being in agreements that dont hold participants accountable to it. Its phony.

1. Well what did Trump pursue for us after the US (one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases) quit the accord? He freed us up to pursue what Michael? As I stated, the accord is new and with anything new, there are kinks to work out. There is nothing phony about it. I´ve read that we´ve become less respectable and more suspicious because of his withdrawal. But hey, isolationism, ain´t it grand?

I think you need to reread my opinion here regarding inefficiency. It was not about number jobs being less. Its about the green energy taking close to half as many jobs to contribute 10% of energy production compared to 80%. That is inefficiency. By the numbers that would be 5 people producing 10 pizzas (green energy) vs 5 people producing 40 pizzas (fossil fuels).

I misunderstood this. But your analogy is not fair. Green Energy is relatively new. Fossil fuels - old, dirty, and dying (which is why there are only NOW 1M jobs).

Regarding privledge. You think the poorest people have the luxury to care about climate change? Im saying climate alarmists should subsidize with their own money and lifestyle. People say moneys not a factor, or we need to sacrafice while not being willing to contribute their own money. That is hypocritical.
And again you keep pointing out fossil fuel subsidies but I dont agree with those.

Yes I do Michael. Many of these poor people are fleeing countries BECAUSE of climate catastrophes. Climate alarmists? Have you talked to the younger generation lately? Ask them how they feel about the climate. Alarmists? So you´re saying only corps. who believe in climate change should foot the bill? Hah? You mean like the energy sector is doing (sarcasm)?

We can continue this discussion if you´d like, but honestly, if you´re a ¨clean coal¨ guy, then it´s likely we´ve reached an impasse on climate change. And I´ll accept that you believe that exiting from the PCA was one of his best foreign policies. How about we move on to your next item that supports Trump´s good foreign policy? Thanks.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: I just want to chime in and clarify that ¨free market subsidies¨ is an oxymoron.

@MayCaesar

I just want to chime in and clarify that "free market subsidies" is an oxymoron. By definition, free market is one run by private individuals without the governmental intrusions, hence governmental subsidies are incompatible with it. The idea that these subsidies come from the market itself is not just objectively wrong (they come from the government instead), but it also does not make logical sense: market cannot subsidize itself. It would be like grabbing oneself and trying to lift oneself off the ground.

I meant that the energy sector was being heavily subsidized still. I should have reread my post before submitting. Thanks for pointing this out although one can wonder if corporations have actually subsidized themselves in a sneaky way to profit more? Nothing would surprise me.

The US steadily has become less and less capitalist, with the government nowadays arresting people trying to sell hot dogs off their own lawns. In the past the US was firmly number 1 in terms of economic freedom in the world - nowadays it rarely makes into top-20.

Yes, thank goodness we have become less and less capitalist with much-needed government interventions and regulations to prevent profiteering. Otherwise, missing body parts of workers may be a common thing. But we still operate largely on market principles with a large percentage of the economy driven by private enterprise. And monopolies continue to plague our free market values - that´s why we have antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission. But I believe that corporations are STILL using the Covid crisis to hide behind to profiteer off unsuspecting Americans. I´m not sure about your statement that the US does not make the top 20 in economic freedom? We are still a country of extraordinary entrepreneurship and innovation and less regulated than many countries.

I do not know what world people thinking that the US has "unbridled capitalism" live in. Unless their definition of capitalism involves government running everything? 90% of the time you go to a hospital, 90% of the time you take a student loan, 90% of the time you start a business - you go through the government. There is virtually nothing you can do economy-wise without getting explicit approval from the government (and usually handing it over a hefty check). This is not cpitalism.

I disagree with your statement that the government is running everything, but you may have inadvertently made a case that not everything SHOULD be run for profit like healthcare and education. Of course there has to be oversight to prevent illegal transactions. Like Biden said ¨Capitalism without competition is exploitation¨. Guidelines and rules are necessary to prevent excessive greed. Allowing private corporations to run themselves without government intervention is like leaving a ship to navigate the seas without a captain. While the ideals of freedom thankfully remains a priority in America, corporations unchecked will eventually lead to exploitation and the eventual breakdown of our free market society. Without regulatory oversight they will prioritize profit over societal well-being. Should profit supercede the well being of America?

Below is an interesting article that highlights pre- and post covid profits

https://inequality.org/great-divide/updates-billionaire-pandemic/

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

I just want to chime in and clarify that "free market subsidies" is an oxymoron. By definition, free market is one run by private individuals without the governmental intrusions, hence governmental subsidies are incompatible with it. The idea that these subsidies come from the market itself is not just objectively wrong (they come from the government instead), but it also does not make logical sense: market cannot subsidize itself. It would be like grabbing oneself and trying to lift oneself off the ground.

forgot to add this before sending (in bold) ....

I meant that the energy sector was being heavily subsidized still. I should have reread my post before submitting. Thanks for pointing this out although one can wonder if corporations have actually subsidized themselves in a sneaky way to profit more? Nothing would surprise me. Although, isn´t that what corporations eventually do with stock buybacks? Isn´t that a way of free market subsidies?

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

Well, I hope you also like the $34 trillion debt, army of bureaucrats pushing tons of papers and getting paid, and having to do a wall of paperwork every time you want to open a sandwich stand in your backyard. Gives a lot of work to lawyers and accountants, leads to $4/gallon gas and $500k+ average property prices in many areas. The reason the US is still relatively free is not because its economy has become freer (it demonstrably has moved hard in the opposite direction, as you kind of admitted by agreeing that it has become less and less capitalist), but because free economies are hard to come by in general. Many enterpreneurs are starting to move out because of the stale economical environment here, and you see a lot of Americans building businesses in UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, even Vietnam. In the US the currently thriving business centers are Austin and Miami, the two least economically regulated cities in the country.

No, in my opinion the government should be separated from the economy same way as it is separated from church. Dealing with cases of fraud and theft is very different from having 190,000+ pages of code private companies must abide by and taxing them to death. On that note, I find it curious that people see companies trying to maximize their profit as an example of "excessive greed", but the government spending trillions that it does not have and taking trillions more from taxpayers by force - why, that is just "much-needed intervention". Funny how it works, no?

I live in the DC. Do you know where the greediest people on this planet live? I invite you to visit the IRS building. Oh, wait, you cannot: only privileged bureaucrats are allowed in there. Pity...

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

Well, I hope you also like the $34 trillion debt, army of bureaucrats pushing tons of papers and getting paid, and having to do a wall of paperwork every time you want to open a sandwich stand in your backyard. Gives a lot of work to lawyers and accountants, leads to $4/gallon gas and $500k+ average property prices in many areas. The reason the US is still relatively free is not because its economy has become freer (it demonstrably has moved hard in the opposite direction, as you kind of admitted by agreeing that it has become less and less capitalist), but because free economies are hard to come by in general. Many enterpreneurs are starting to move out because of the stale economical environment here, and you see a lot of Americans building businesses in UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, even Vietnam. In the US the currently thriving business centers are Austin and Miami, the two least economically regulated cities in the country.

We´ve carried debt since its inception but yeah, that´s a lot of debt. Debt is always increasing due to inflation. The debt has spiked obviously in recent years due to Covid. But also tax cuts, stimulus programs, government spending and lower tax revenue are all reasons for debt. So I agree that regulation can be costly but it also discourages monopolistic business patterns, insatiable greed and it saves lives. I know that small business took the largest hit during Covid and many businesses did not survive. So it was a trade off wasn´t it? Less lives lost but more businesses died. Yes many businesses are leaving for other countries not only for lower taxes but international business opportunities and the political climate of America is turning people to safer countries to raise children. While I agree regulation is burdensome, timely, costly and bureaucratic, it is also a necessity to keep corporations accountable. So surely, all USA´s debt is not because of taxes and overregulation.

No, in my opinion the government should be separated from the economy same way as it is separated from church. Dealing with cases of fraud and theft is very different from having 190,000+ pages of code private companies must abide by and taxing them to death. On that note, I find it curious that people see companies trying to maximize their profit as an example of "excessive greed", but the government spending trillions that it does not have and taking trillions more from taxpayers by force - why, that is just "much-needed intervention". Funny how it works, no?

You say government should be separated from the economy. But if a business owner is committing fraud, embezzlement, falsifying records, profiteering etc, then who steps in? Who makes the rules for these corporations? I also believe there have been too many tax loops granted wealthy corporations. Trump took the corporate tax rate of 39% to 21% significantly adding to our deficit to a tune of almost 8B. I believe corporations should be taxed fairly. I believe that corporations should pay AT LEAST the same as their employees. Yes, there are excessively greedy companies who simply cannot stand to lose a penny. Surely you understand that income inequality has grown over the years and continues. Yes, government spending is reckless in areas but it is a false comparison you give.

I live in the DC. Do you know where the greediest people on this planet live? I invite you to visit the IRS building. Oh, wait, you cannot: only privileged bureaucrats are allowed in there. Pity...

Must be wonderful to live in D.C. Love visiting D.C. I have not heard that the greediest people work in IRS. I cannot seem to find any information on that. I did however, find lots on the hiring of 87K new IRS employees which I knew. I believe this was a great move by Biden. Now the IRS employees, because of time and employee shortages, won´t be inclined to just go after the little guy that takes little manpower and time. They now have the manpower to go after the greediest ¨white collar¨ tax crooks. Bravo Joe Biden

Why does it feel like I´m living in a dystopian America? Just where do we all get our information from?

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

I beg your pardon, but what do you think the federal debt constitutes? When the government decides to borrow money in order to fund some project, where does the money come from? What is unpaid governmental obligation if not expansion of money supply which constitutes a tax on the population?

You seem to have a general approach to economy as a ship that needs a captain. That is a standard collectivist framework in which the individual is just a cog in the machine and not a sovereign unit pursuing his own goals and passions. I will say something that you might interpret as extreme heresy though: I do not have an obligation to care about other people's well-being. I can if I prefer, but as long as I do not coerce anyone into anything and interact with everyone by means of consensual exchanges, no one has any claim to my property or rights.

If someone is extremely "greedy" and finds a business model that satisfies the customers and has them willingly pay for the services, stocks, et cetera, then what exactly is the problem? And how is governmental greed fundamentally better than private greed? Whose greed, for instance, would affect you more - my greed, or greed of the Secretary of State?

I like living in the DC, but it is also a bureaucratic black hole. You are very naive to think that the IRS is going to be sated by increase in the number of employees. These things work the opposite way: the bigger the beast gets, the hungrier it gets. Ever tried reaching the IRS on the phone? Try some time, especially when they make a mistake somewhere and send you a $600,000 check (real story), and refuse to clarify where this even came from.

This is something observed across the entire world. I have lived for very long periods of time in 3 different countries, and it was the same everywhere: you want something done quickly and efficiently - you go to the private market; you want to get drowned in bureaucracy and waste - you go to the government.

These are not terribly complicated things. It is not hard to understand why someone in a highly competitive environment would have to do better than someone whose position is guaranteed for life no matter what they do, whose income is independent on the quality of their work, and who gets to enjoy spending other people's money.

What I do find dystopian is that people regurgitate whatever they heard on their favorite TV channel or newspaper website without thinking about it at all. That you are not familiar with how things are done at the IRS, the organization to which you pay more than to any other economical entity in the world over the course of your life - that is dystopia.

And interestingly enough, here in the DC people understand that. We have a lot of contractors and federal employees, and they all have encountered governmental corruption and inefficiency first hand. The most staunch Democrat here will say that the government... sucks, to put it bluntly. Go to any meetup or social gathering of professionals, and that will be the very first subject to be discussed.

That could be a good reason to move to the DC and live here for a bit: you would come to many painful, but essential realizations.

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

I did however, find lots on the hiring of 87K new IRS employees which I knew. I believe this was a great move by Biden. Now the IRS employees, because of time and employee shortages, won´t be inclined to just go after the little guy that takes little manpower and time. They now have the manpower to go after the greediest ¨white collar¨ tax crooks. Bravo Joe Biden

Why does it feel like I´m living in a dystopian America? Just where do we all get our information from?

Considering the last 16 years the irs has operated under democrat administrations 12 of those years; including the greater part of the last 4, and the fact dems consistently pass bills in congress supposedly taxing the rich to pay their fair share; why on earth wasn't the agents we did have not going after those who democrats claimed in speeches they'd go after? "Manpower and time" are just flimsy excuses the left uses for breaking promises and setting up more tax scams. If the irs were really that short handed they would have just gone after the biggest prizes and let the little stuff go. Instead they could only go after the little guy as you claim under the reign of liberal democrats? Sorry but in your zeal to highlight Trumps faults you've shown a spot light on Biden and the dems lies. Fact is the left needs the rich to get elected just as much as the right.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: It takes more money and manpower

@Factfinder

Considering the last 16 years the irs has operated under democrat administrations 12 of those years; including the greater part of the last 4, and the fact dems consistently pass bills in congress supposedly taxing the rich to pay their fair share; why on earth wasn't the agents we did have not going after those who democrats claimed in speeches they'd go after? "Manpower and time" are just flimsy excuses the left uses for breaking promises and setting up more tax scams. If the irs were really that short handed they would have just gone after the biggest prizes and let the little stuff go.

It takes more money and manpower and modern technology for the IRS to focus its audits on the more complex cases (high $ tax returns) rather than minor mistakes by the middle income filers. The IRS has been severely underfunded for decades.

What promise did the democrats break? What are the tax scams that dems are setting up?

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

It takes more money and manpower and modern technology for the IRS to focus its audits on the more complex cases (high $ tax returns) rather than minor mistakes by the middle income filers. The IRS has been severely underfunded for decades.

So according to you decades of promising to make the rich 'pay their fair share' democrats knew all along it was too 'complex' to do that so they went after the middle class instead because 'minor mistakes' by them are easier prey? Fascinating you'd admit that considering your position. Suppose another tax increase is in order to fix that once these new agents run into 'complexities'? .

What promise did the democrats break? What are the tax scams that dems are setting up?

Well you just described one of them above. You first brought attention to it unwittingly here...because of time and employee shortages, won´t be inclined to just go after the little guy that takes little manpower and time. They now have the manpower to go after the greediest ¨white collar¨ tax crooks. Bravo Joe Biden ~ Delilah

Come on Delilah, you know it's the modus operandi of the left to raise and create taxes always demanding more to fix problems that never get fixed. Like the affordable healthcare act, made promises to the poor yet it turned out to be another tax on them and the working class? According to you, Obama and Biden did that knowing the irs operated the way it does, going after the easy prey. Regardless of any promises they broke along the way. That hasn't changed about the party you seem to support and you know it...

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/confirmed-crippling-tax-hikes-violate-president-bidens-pledge-not-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

And of course here they are making plans to deliberately break a promise why? Well because that was last election, will have a bigger lie this time around to replace it...

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report titled “How The $400K Tax Pledge Undermines Policymaking,” which argues that President Biden and the Democratic Party should move beyond Biden’s 2020 pledge not to raise taxes on any household making under $400,000. Report author Ben Ritz, Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future, explains the need for pragmatic progressives to push Democrats to soften this tax pledge if they want to bolster public investment in a fiscally sustainable way.

The report argues that raising taxes only on households with incomes over $400,000 is insufficient to fund current promises, let alone the new initiatives Biden has proposed during his presidency or the wish list of expanded programs sought by progressives

https://www.progressivepolicy.org/pressrelease/ppi-urges-democrats-to-move-beyond-400k-tax-pledge/

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: I beg your pardon,

@MayCaesar

I beg your pardon, but what do you think the federal debt constitutes? When the government decides to borrow money in order to fund some project, where does the money come from? What is unpaid governmental obligation if not expansion of money supply which constitutes a tax on the population?

You seem to have a general approach to economy as a ship that needs a captain. That is a standard collectivist framework in which the individual is just a cog in the machine and not a sovereign unit pursuing his own goals and passions. I will say something that you might interpret as extreme heresy though: I do not have an obligation to care about other people's well-being. I can if I prefer, but as long as I do not coerce anyone into anything and interact with everyone by means of consensual exchanges, no one has any claim to my property or rights.

I am an American just trying my best to be a good, caring citizen. We´re all cogs in the machine. I´m a collectivist whereas I prioritize the health of society as a whole. You appear to be an individualist where it seems your personal needs take preference. Perhaps this is the simplicity of the crux of our nation´s problems and inability to unite in a nutshell. My naivete had no idea of this until Trump´s presidency revealed these differences. Of course there is no obligation on you to care about other peoples´ well-being. But disadvantages may be a tendency toward selfish behavior and lack of consideration for others. I am actually in awe of the individualist who finds it more beneficial to remain individually autonomous whereas the collectivist finds comfort and freedom in a collective society. To some, individualism seems the best route with less problems. To me collectivism is the grandest extravanganda but seemingly not within practical reach (now) as a goal. Collectivists also tend to display more social anxiety.

If someone is extremely "greedy" and finds a business model that satisfies the customers and has them willingly pay for the services, stocks, et cetera, then what exactly is the problem? And how is governmental greed fundamentally better than private greed? Whose greed, for instance, would affect you more - my greed, or greed of the Secretary of State?

There is no problem with making a profit. There is no problem with customers willing to engage in your product. There IS a problem when you run your business unethically. This behavior seems to be becoming more normalized. Pushing the boundaries of morality is where it seems to begin. When corporations bend morality (deregulation can promote this behavior), then it poses significant consequences for not only the business but its stakeholders and society at large. Now I´m not sure your equivalency of the government´s greed being the same as corporation´s greed. Perhaps unintentionally.

I like living in the DC, but it is also a bureaucratic black hole. You are very naive to think that the IRS is going to be sated by increase in the number of employees. These things work the opposite way: the bigger the beast gets, the hungrier it gets. Ever tried reaching the IRS on the phone? Try some time, especially when they make a mistake somewhere and send you a $600,000 check (real story), and refuse to clarify where this even came from.

We shall see about the increase in IRS manpower. Sometimes the bigger the best, the hungrier the beast but several things may deter the beast. 1) Oversight and regulation 2) Collective initiative toward the goal 3) Reward for initiative 4) Morality. You may be happy with some changes as some $ will be allocated to modernizing antiquated information technology. I´ve read that the IRS currently has collected 360M in overdue taxes from delinquent millionaires. And they´re just getting started.

This is something observed across the entire world. I have lived for very long periods of time in 3 different countries, and it was the same everywhere: you want something done quickly and efficiently - you go to the private market; you want to get drowned in bureaucracy and waste - you go to the government.

Of course, dealing with one vs. many is always easier. But perhaps dealing with the chance of one bad apple vs dealing with at least a 50/50 chance that there are more good apples than bad in a bushel is the sweet spot.

These are not terribly complicated things. It is not hard to understand why someone in a highly competitive environment would have to do better than someone whose position is guaranteed for life no matter what they do, whose income is independent on the quality of their work, and who gets to enjoy spending other people's money.

This I agree with to an extent. While this is true, as corporations´ profits grow, the incentive and need to protect these assets increases. How does a successful businessman go about this especially knowing that profit over job performance is always more rewarded? This is where ethics comes into play. That would be tax loopholes, tax havens, tax evasion, tax fraud, falsifying business records, and voting for one who lowers taxes on the wealthy. That said, there is NO doubt about it that government needs severe reform in so many areas - too numerous to get into. But I am not so stoked with suspicion of ALL government (YET).

What I do find dystopian is that people regurgitate whatever they heard on their favorite TV channel or newspaper website without thinking about it at all. That you are not familiar with how things are done at the IRS, the organization to which you pay more than to any other economical entity in the world over the course of your life - that is dystopia.

I try to stay informed. I read a lot. I am aware of biases in the media and all news sources. I actually can smell an un-misinformed news nut a mile away - this would be your basic FOX News watcher. While admittedly, I´m not a staunch IRS news reader, and admittedly, I tend toward trust in humanity rather than suspicion, that is not really a dystopia - if anything it is utopian.

And interestingly enough, here in the DC people understand that. We have a lot of contractors and federal employees, and they all have encountered governmental corruption and inefficiency first hand. The most staunch Democrat here will say that the government... sucks, to put it bluntly. Go to any meetup or social gathering of professionals, and that will be the very first subject to be discussed.

Well D.C. IS the eye of the corruption in this country isn´t it? That does not surprise me and of course, my views on government would change if I were closer to the eye. I have hope that government can change. I remain especially vigilant now. Biden is the least painful option. It is like the choice between a tooth extraction, painful but temporary - or living with a festering and permanent pain.

That could be a good reason to move to the DC and live here for a bit: you would come to many painful, but essential realizations.

Yes, visiting D.C. is always wonderful, being part of history. I have a reasonable and healthy amount of distrust in our government. But I still have hope that its democratic institutions, checks and balances and history of stability and progress through negotiation and compromise are still chugging away. I do understand that as a society we all need to be educated and involved in government actions, engaging in civic participation, paying attention to elected officials. Democracy cannot be sustained without citizen participation in some manner.

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

I think you misinterpret terms "collectivist" and "individualist". It is not about who you care about, but who fundamentally holds power over human life. A collectivist believes that collective has a claim on each of its members' life, while an individualist belief that every individual is sovereign and the collective is nothing but a collection of such individuals. A collectivist believes that a group can force the individual to do something he does not like because it benefits the group, while an individualist is fundamentally opposed to any coercion.

If you talk to my friends, they will all tell you the same thing: I am one of the most caring persons on this planet. For people I care about I will do anything: drive them to the airport at 1 am during weekday because I want them to have company before flying alone to their home country, take the whole day to fly to a different state with them to help them move... But I do it because I want to, not because someone compels to. Collectivism is a fundamentally tyrannical position, and it has nothing to do with compassion or selflessness.

How does business affect those who do not interact with it? In what way is BestBuy unethical towards me when I choose not to buy everything from them and never visit their stores?

Milton Friedman once did a comprehensive analysis of a large array of governmental program, and found that only one of them did not produce outright net economical drain - and that was still a failed program in other dimensions. I have asked people many times to demonstrate to me a single case in which governmental spending demonstrably outperform private spending, and so far no one has come up with an example. And the IRS especially is notorious for its inefficiency. Again, I encourage you to give them a phone call - and report on how many hours it took you to get it answered. Then call to similarly gigantic private corporation - Amazon - and report back; the number will likely be in seconds, and in pretty low digits.

Why the difference? Well, in the first case you are going to pay the IRS whether you like it or not. In the second case, if you do not like Amazon's service quality, you will go elsewhere. Can you go from IRS elsewhere? Yes, but only to jail.

It seems pretty obvious to me that "Deal with us or go to jail" is a much more tyrannical way to organize interaction with customers, than "Deal with us or do not, up to you". Do you disagree?

Based even just on that, it seems that one's employment in the private sector is fundamentally much more benevolent than their employment in the public sector, let alone in the role of a tax collector. Person literally taking money away from others by force. It would be otherwise called a robbery... but because of a paper written by someone 250+ years ago and signed by a bunch of nobles, we do not call it that.

I think you singling out Fox speaks of a pretty significant bias. Virtually all cable news channels nowadays are extremely corrupt, in my experience. I hiked with a lady once who watched BBC routinely, and she seriously compared Trump to Hitler... No impartial individual will ever make this comparison.

My experience of living in a variety of countries, from totalitarian dystopias and to the freest states in the US (and there is a HUGE difference between the amounts of freedom residents of different states have; California and Florida are almost as different as Turkey and Germany), is that society is only ever relatively free if it views the government with extreme skepticism. People should have a strong understanding of the nature of the government - a gunner targeting the civilian - and only then progress can be made. But when people celebrate expansion of the IRS, of all organizations, just because the president from their party engages in it (as a mental experiment, consider how would you react to Trump doing the same) - then you end up with $35 trillion of debt and unnavigable labyrinths of regulations.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Donald Trump's foreign policy is "peace through strength" and unrelenting diplomatic relationships that engendered peace in the Middle East via the Abraham Accords, a secure southern border, an emphasis on legal immigration, the deportation of illegal immigrants, the building of a strong military with new armament and technology...aspirations for a "Space Force" to provide additional strength and protection for America...an "America First" agenda that works for the "We the people" and pride in America and our history.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/gt/sw55kyihy1jk.jpg

Delilah6120

@Factfinder

So according to you decades of promising to make the rich 'pay their fair share' democrats knew all along it was too 'complex' to do that so they went after the middle class instead because 'minor mistakes' by them are easier prey? Fascinating you'd admit that considering your position. Suppose another tax increase is in order to fix that once these new agents run into 'complexities'? .

Your assertion that the dems went after the middle class deliberately is silly. From my view, that the IRS has more funds to hire more people and upgrade their antiquated technology is good for America. The notion that one cheats on their tax returns, and it is normal and okay, is simply not acceptable anymore. You cheat, you cheat everyone. Cheating on tax returns has become as normal as brushing your teeth in America.

What promise did the democrats break? What are the tax scams that dems are setting up?

Well now, I guess Biden finally kept the promise that the rich will finally pay taxes they owe didn´t he? The majority of Americans agree with funding the IRS and the attention on wealthy taxpayers who simply do not pay their fair share.The budget of the IRS has been trimmed down by Congress over many years and their workforce decreased by almost 1/3rd as population rose by the same Fewer tax collectors = fewer audits. It was simply cheaper and easier for the IRS to investigate low-income taxpayers rather than wealthy taxpayers. There´s nothing more to it. You can try to turn this into some nefarious, evil plot of Democrats, but it is simply not true.

Come on Delilah, you know it's the modus operandi of the left to raise and create taxes always demanding more to fix problems that never get fixed. Like the affordable healthcare act, made promises to the poor yet it turned out to be another tax on them and the working class? According to you, Obama and Biden did that knowing the irs operated the way it does, going after the easy prey. Regardless of any promises they broke along the way. That hasn't changed about the party you seem to support and you know it...

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/confirmed-crippling-tax-hikes-violate-president-bidens-pledge-not-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

Obama´s ACA was very unpopular years ago, especially by republicans but also by some democrats. The notion that healthy, young people needed to ¨pay into¨ this system, even if healthy individuals opted out of healthcare, was one thorn. And many still wonder why we just did not go to a universal healthcare system like all other industrialized countries. Well, we know how that would go over with Republicans, so Obama did what he could to help ensure that ALL Americans had health care, not just those who could afford it. For those unlucky enough to have to work 2 or 3 part time jobs that did not have employee healthcare coverage, this ensured they were covered. This system required ALL to contribute into it to ensure this. Did you know that before the ACA, millions were being refused healthcare if they had existing health issues? Yes, being turned away if they had cancer. Isn´t that American? Why is it that everything Democrats do, they are doing it for nefarious reasons? Why should only wealthy people be entitled to good health? The ACA is very popular today and has saved millions of lives. Trump, during his reign, promised to get rid of it and replace it with something beautiful. Yeah, how did that go? He had nothing - I repeat NOTHING to put in its place. Why? Because ¨Nobody knew how complicated it was.¨ (Trump´s profound words). Again, stop turning the Democrats into evil, nefarious humans. It´s silly. Too much Fox news hate mongering?

And of course here they are making plans to deliberately break a promise why? Well because that was last election, will have a bigger lie this time around to replace it...

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report titled “How The $400K Tax Pledge Undermines Policymaking,” which argues that President Biden and the Democratic Party should move beyond Biden’s 2020 pledge not to raise taxes on any household making under $400,000. Report author Ben Ritz, Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future, explains the need for pragmatic progressives to push Democrats to soften this tax pledge if they want to bolster public investment in a fiscally sustainable way.

The report argues that raising taxes only on households with incomes over $400,000 is insufficient to fund current promises, let alone the new initiatives Biden has proposed during his presidency or the wish list of expanded programs sought by progressives

https://www.progressivepolicy.org/pressrelease/ppi-urges-democrats-to-move-beyond-400k-tax-pledge/

Your short exerpt goes on to say:

“The reality is that some form of higher tax revenue is necessary to finance the needs of our aging population — and asking only families that make $400K to bear an increased burden is neither fair nor practical,” said Ben Ritz. “Pragmatic progressives must start making the case to voters why progressive programs are worth paying for. That means advocating for not only progressive tax increases, but also for broadening the tax base and closing inefficient loopholes — even those that benefit the middle class. At the same time, progressives must propose to modernize rather than simply expand existing spending programs, because the public’s tolerance for taxation only goes so high.”

Just how do you think that will go over with the Republicans? Advocating for progressive tax increases but expanding the tax base and closing loopholes .... I´m guessing it would not be well received.

I understand that perhaps a more progressive tax system may be beneficial but your quote hardly proves that the Dems are deliberately breaking promises. More paranoia? You think Dems are deliberately lying? For what? I´m honestly wondering what feeds your seeming disdain for Democrats? It seems unreasonable to me. Iḿ unclear of your point here as the exerpts seem to argue for an expansion of Biden´s tax policy from a progressive approach. It stated that MORE needed to be done to reduce our tax burden. I guess if your argument was that even more needs to be done on Biden´s policies, I would understand this.

And if Trump is reelected?

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-will-happen-to-the-trump-tax-cuts-in-2025-and-how-will-they-affect-the-national-debt/

Exerpts:

Now, analysis in 2018 found that the cuts would boost the economy, but the effect would fizzle out quickly. And the price tag would be huge. The bill is expected to add nearly $2 trillion to the deficit by 2028.

Trump has actually pledged to make even more tax cuts – if that happens, obviously the deficit would grow even faster and the debt would be even larger.

Delilah6120

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Woooooo. Space Force! Next Trump will market a new Celebrity Apprentice in space!

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; Woooo...the ignorance and short sightedness of the Progressive Democrat...baffling in its stup-idity.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/304306/space-race-how-the-us-and-china-are-locked-in-a-battle-to-become-superior-in-space/

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

Your assertion that the dems went after the middle class deliberately is silly.

Uh, that was your assertion...I believe this was a great move by Biden. Now the IRS employees, because of time and employee shortages, won´t be inclined to just go after the little guy that takes little manpower and time. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/180461/#Comment_180461 ;

If you'll recall I went with it because of the rarity it is to see that kind of transparency coming from a liberal democrat. Is it necessary to quote your proceeding remarks to the above and doubling down on that opinion?

From my view, that the IRS has more funds to hire more people and upgrade their antiquated technology is good for America. The notion that one cheats on their tax returns, and it is normal and okay, is simply not acceptable anymore. You cheat, you cheat everyone. Cheating on tax returns has become as normal as brushing your teeth in America.

Possibly, but in reality why should hard working tax payers think anything will change? This is the basic flaw in liberalism in our country. Tax and spend at any cost to reach utopian ideals. The reality that this attitude has created is a soft dystopian society moving towards hard dystopian realities. Your attempts of painting government as the model of benevolence while at the same time claiming individuals and corporations are out to cheat it every chance they get; and "everyone" like "brushing your teeth" everyday is what's truly silly. I know, now's a good time for you to assert you have some kind of nominal skepticism of government sometimes. But I'm sure judging from your posts that is mainly reserved for parts of government not under the lefts control.

Federal, most states, and some cities & counties have given themselves the ability to take an average of 30% of the working classes paychecks off the top before these people even see their paychecks. Every time libs raise taxes it effects these hard working folks that you villainize. Often directly and always indirectly. Because after you've taxed them before they get paid, you tax them again after they get paid with sales taxes, excise taxes, special fuel, tobacco, liquor and road taxes that get multiplied with overlapping bills taxing the same things several times. Taxes often leveled out in layered dispensation schedules virtually ensuring permanent tax policy. Then your camp makes more speeches and promises about going after the rich which causes the rich who by the way, invest and produce all the things we have and use, to raise their prices. Which hurts the working poor the most. Meanwhile what's the remaining battle cry of liberal democrats? We need more taxes for this and that, tax and spend, tax and spend to Utopia! How much is enough 75% tax rate for everyone? 100% on everyone, more? Should we introduce a bill to tax future generations for the failed goals of the liberal left?

The one who has the most to gain and the greatest opportunity to 'cheat on taxes' is the government by implementing self serving policies. That's why liberal politicians can enter politics with relatively speaking modest middle to upper middle, middle incomes with the backing of rich democrats and leave politics millionaires and billionaires. Trump on the other hand went in with much more money then he did coming out. We do not need more taxes. What's needed is government accountability more than anything else by far. The checks and balances we have in place has more loop holes in it than even the softest taxes on the rich could ever contain. While your party complains about corporate profits for providing goods and services being in the millions and billions the government racks up trillions in debt with no concern or tangible results it can point to.

What promise did the democrats break? What are the tax scams that dems are setting up?

Asked and answered supported by your words and a couple of links reinforcing the common knowledge and uncovering of liberal tax schemes or modus operando. Still no substantiative response to counter.

I'm not going to rehash Obamacare care, I brought it up merely to point out how liberals operate and still think (the gullible ones anyway) they champion the little guy. You admitted yourself considering man power and budget issues that's what government has to do, go after the little guy. Don't sound like championing the little guy to me. And in the end it was the scheme a lot of people thought it was as today the same arguments are being made about preexisting conditions and participation. Obama had to change it from a healthcare bill to a tax because when challenged in court that's what the judge ruled it really was if implemented. Remember how the scam went? Keep your doctor and all?

I read my sources and I know what they said. The fact that liberals can readily drum up excuses for breaking promises and the failure of their tax schemes doesn't negate the fact of their existence and the routinely down playing of them, dismissing them and moving on to the next scheme is still documented and uncontested. They already want to break Bidens $400,000 and under no taxation scheme (promise) as you know because you read it from the horses mouth on one of my sources.

You should know I'm not a Trump supporter which is why I haven't participated too much in this debate. It's not like he's any prize either but the fact is we were better off during his administration in many significant ways. Other things we were not any better off where personal freedoms are concerned comes to mind. And that is a concern. But I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to hear what you had to say in defense of your statement...I believe this was a great move by Biden. Now the IRS employees, because of time and employee shortages, won´t be inclined to just go after the little guy that takes little manpower and time.

It's still surprising you said that and in the context of our exchanges. You probably wish you had worded it different? But then again you doubled downed on it and even think 87 or so agents will make some profoundly huge difference when 12 out of the last 16 years liberals had control could not? Including the last four years? I know, more taxes, more people, more equipment, more spending and more taxes is your answer.

RickeyHoltsclaw

God Bless President Trump...a warrior who loves America and has given his all for Her sustainability against the evils of the Democrat-Progressive Party.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/6m/o9oc9luvxymy.jpg

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

God Bless President Trump...a warrior who loves America and has given his all for Her sustainability against the evils of the Democrat-Progressive Party.

Problem is 'conservatives' like you who expound so much nonsensical rhetoric and evil religion are no more appealing.

Delilah6120

@RickeyHoltsclaw

https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1789660021325803992

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; It is the fool that supports the Biden administration, abortion on demand; open borders; climate change -?Green New Deal; rejection of - rejecting aid INRE to Israel's war with HAMAS and Iran; shutting down the petroleum sector of the United States; advocating for LGBTQ perversion forced upon children; raising taxes and neglecting inflation; ignoring crime and homelessness in our municipalities; providing drugs to addicts in street scenarios; defunding the police; weaponizing the DOJ; cheating at elections. You are this fool.

Factfinder

You are this fool.

Your wife told me you're the fool and your children are ashamed of you.@RickeyHoltsclaw

RickeyHoltsclaw

@RickeyHoltsclaw ; The atheist is Satan's fool...they are societies "weak link." They need Jesus.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/ho/sm65g74aog1a.jpg

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

The atheist is Satan's fool...they are societies "weak link." They need Jesus.

Your wife disagrees with you.

RickeyHoltsclaw

The atheist is demonically deceived, they can't know because their life belongs to Satan.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

The atheist is demonically deceived, they can't know because their life belongs to Satan.

Yet your wife said you suck donkey dicks.

RickeyHoltsclaw

God Bless Donald Trump and all that he has done for the honorable American citizen and will do subsequent the next election.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/f5/uut0wizy155h.jpg

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Your wife said you're embarrassing.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Donald Trump is the only one who can restore America and free Her from the filth of the atheist-democrat-progressive. God bless Donald Trump.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/fq/ph91mdff7mtb.jpg

Delilah6120

@RickeyHoltsclaw @Factfinder

You should know I'm not a Trump supporter which is why I haven't participated too much in this debate. It's not like he's any prize either but the fact is we were better off during his administration in many significant ways. Other things we were not any better off where personal freedoms are concerned comes to mind. And that is a concern. But I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to hear what you had to say in defense of your statement...I believe this was a great move by Biden. Now the IRS employees, because of time and employee shortages, won´t be inclined to just go after the little guy that takes little manpower and time.

I am not sure what you are looking for about my statement but you seem stuck on this. I said I thought that additional funding to the IRS was necessary and way overdue. Yes, when resources are limited in a department, then there is limited time, money and resources to go toward the most difficult cases (the complicated tax returns of the wealthy). That´s it. That the IRS went after the more simple tax returns of the middle class was the necessary course as resources were limited.

Delilah6120

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Honestly, I do not understand your silly pictures and memes? You simply cannot be serious about any of your posts that are frighteningly extreme.

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

I think you misinterpret terms "collectivist" and "individualist". It is not about who you care about, but who fundamentally holds power over human life. A collectivist believes that collective has a claim on each of its members' life, while an individualist belief that every individual is sovereign and the collective is nothing but a collection of such individuals. A collectivist believes that a group can force the individual to do something he does not like because it benefits the group, while an individualist is fundamentally opposed to any coercion.

I agree with some of this. But I do not agree with your assessment that collectivism or individualism is about who holds power over human life. Perhaps an individualist, with autonomy being most crucial, is especially sensitive to being controlled? Collectivism is more about the comfort of unity and harmony within a collective society. I do not see it as holding power over others or ¨forcing¨ others. Where I agree somewhat is that the collective many may unintentionally hold power over one disagreeing autonomous individual. But it is not as nefarious as you make it out to be (again, IMO as a collectivist, as I view prioritizing POWER over someone to be nefarious in itself). The collectivist also may have policies imposed on them by the government that they also may not agree with.

If you talk to my friends, they will all tell you the same thing: I am one of the most caring persons on this planet. For people I care about I will do anything: drive them to the airport at 1 am during weekday because I want them to have company before flying alone to their home country, take the whole day to fly to a different state with them to help them move... But I do it because I want to, not because someone compels to. Collectivism is a fundamentally tyrannical position, and it has nothing to do with compassion or selflessness.

It is commendable that you care about people and help them because you want to. There are millions who simply do not. We´ve become more dog eat dog in the past decade and have adopted an ¨every man for himself¨ philosophy, at least it seems to me. It seems to be a more competitive and ruthless environment we´re living in. I disagree that collectivism is a tyrannical position. Now I can see how an individualist who prioritizes his autonomy believes that collectivism can lead to tyranny because collectivists may prioritize the authority of one group over individual freedom. Collectivists tend to believe in the fostering of solidarity, cooperation, and shared responsibility for the welfare of all members of society. They may view collectivist principles as necessary for addressing social inequalities and promoting communal well-being. Could this just just because the majority rules - there are more numbers in collectivism? Collectivism may not be inherently tyrannical but rather a means to achieve greater social equity and harmony.

How does business affect those who do not interact with it? In what way is BestBuy unethical towards me when I choose not to buy everything from them and never visit their stores?

Of course, we have the choice to patronize whatever stores we want. BestBuy would not be on the necessity list of stores consumers need. Your local grocery markets, gas stations, etc. are a necessity as we must eat and have gas in our vehicles. Yes I believe corporate America has pushed the boundaries of morality. American consumers are being raped. Many corporations are still using Covid and inflation to unfairly and unethically price gouge. Monopolies have created a haven for profiteering. I´m sure you´ve seen our grocery products shrinking in size - otherwise known as shrinkflation, greedflation? Thankfully the Biden administration is concentrating on antitrust enforcement of corporate profiteering. The administration is suing Amazon for jacking up prices, Apple for its monopolistic practices and has sued to block the merging of JetBlue and Spirit Airlines but there is a long way to go. So this is an example of the unbridled recklessness and greed that has severely affected our economy.

Milton Friedman once did a comprehensive analysis of a large array of governmental program, and found that only one of them did not produce outright net economical drain - and that was still a failed program in other dimensions. I have asked people many times to demonstrate to me a single case in which governmental spending demonstrably outperform private spending, and so far no one has come up with an example. And the IRS especially is notorious for its inefficiency. Again, I encourage you to give them a phone call - and report on how many hours it took you to get it answered. Then call to similarly gigantic private corporation - Amazon - and report back; the number will likely be in seconds, and in pretty low digits.

Why the difference? Well, in the first case you are going to pay the IRS whether you like it or not. In the second case, if you do not like Amazon's service quality, you will go elsewhere. Can you go from IRS elsewhere? Yes, but only to jail.

It seems pretty obvious to me that "Deal with us or go to jail" is a much more tyrannical way to organize interaction with customers, than "Deal with us or do not, up to you". Do you disagree?

Based even just on that, it seems that one's employment in the private sector is fundamentally much more benevolent than their employment in the public sector, let alone in the role of a tax collector. Person literally taking money away from others by force. It would be otherwise called a robbery... but because of a paper written by someone 250+ years ago and signed by a bunch of nobles, we do not call it that.

No doubt about it, government spending is reckless. Yes, the IRS is notoriously inefficient but again, the intended increase in funding for the IRS is meant to alleviate some of its inefficiencies. No of course you cannot go elsewhere if you´re dealing with taxes. I do not know the answer to this. Absolve the IRS with all its inefficiencies? Encourage free market tax corporations and trust them to ¨ethically¨ outperform the IRS? But still I believe your description ¨tyrannical¨ is overstated. It is a large government-run department but to assume it is tyrannical in its nature is cynical in my opinion. Inefficient and outdated, perhaps. I certainly don´t understand your assertion that working in the private sector is more benevolent than working in the public sector? Eeeks where does all this suspicion derive from? When did Americans become so cynical about our institutions?

I think you singling out Fox speaks of a pretty significant bias. Virtually all cable news channels nowadays are extremely corrupt, in my experience. I hiked with a lady once who watched BBC routinely, and she seriously compared Trump to Hitler... No impartial individual will ever make this comparison.

I´ve experienced firsthand the outright lies that Fox spews. I understand it´s the most popular news channel for decades. Americans do love a little entertainment and eye candy served up with their news. Right off the get go, you see the group of perfectly coiffed women in their stiletto heels as bait to keep their viewers captivated and severely underinformed. It´s shockingly shallow. I believe FOX News is responsible for much fear and hate mongering being disseminated to Americans. I believe it is one reason so many are cynical, ignorant, angry and full of hate. I watch Fox occasionally and have actually done live fact checking as they commentate. Fox News is also being sued for defamation by Dominion Voting machines and Smartmatic for knowingly airing more than 100 false statements about election fraud and faulty voting machines. Come on. Bias? Using their bully pulpit to spread lies for $$$$ is beyond unethical. It should be criminal. They´ve also been involved in numerous sexual harassment scandals. Yes, other news stations may report some misdeeds but surely there is little comparison. I listen to and read BBC quite often. Trump being compared to Hitler? Well I´ve heard this from several resources. Not even going to entertain this as just his name makes me sick. No impartial individual would make this comparison? Really? And perhaps it was an Opinion piece?

My experience of living in a variety of countries, from totalitarian dystopias and to the freest states in the US (and there is a HUGE difference between the amounts of freedom residents of different states have; California and Florida are almost as different as Turkey and Germany), is that society is only ever relatively free if it views the government with extreme skepticism.

We obviously differ in so many areas. You believe America´s freedom is dependent on extreme government skepticism? I agree that it should be viewed with some skepticism as all corporations should be. But extreme? To understand more of where your position comes from, where do you get your news? Curious.

People should have a strong understanding of the nature of the government - a gunner targeting the civilian - and only then progress can be made. But when people celebrate expansion of the IRS, of all organizations, just because the president from their party engages in it

I agree that Americans should have a better understanding of government. I also believe Americans should have a better understanding of the private sector and its misdeeds. My support of the IRS funding in no way is determined by my loyalty to the president or party. I happen to believe it is long overdue. Your Trump hypothetical is unreasonable so I won´t respond. Yes, government spending is one of the primary contributors to our national debt. But there are other influencers and tax policies is huge. By lowering tax rates for the wealthy we actually decrease revenue. It is believed that higher taxes will actually increase revenue and help reduce deficits. Other contributors are economic downturns, interest payments, wars, the aging population increasing healthcare costs. Funding the IRS that has been severely underfunded for decades is a good start. The IRS is the department that Americans love to hate but it is essential to have. Dems believe that beefing up the IRS will greatly increase revenue as the wealthier will be held accountable to pay their taxes fairly thus increasing revenue. Is it the only solution? Of course not, but a good start.

(as a mental experiment, consider how would you react to Trump doing the same) - then you end up with $35 trillion of debt and unnavigable labyrinths of regulations

Yes, regulations are burdensome for business owners. But deregulation causes market instability, weakening consumer protections, environmental catastrophes, monopolistic behaviors, the exploitation of workers (who needs that finger anyway), financial risks, increase in social inequality and degradation in the quality of services. We need regulation to promote efficiency and innovation and to ensure workers are not exploited for profit.

In my view, I counter your statement ¨society is only every relatively free if it views the government with extreme skepticism¨ is True freedom only exists when all members of society, especially the most marginalized and oppressed are free.

Collectivism vs. Individualism

Delilah6120

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Four more years of this .... hahahahahaha

https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1789660021325803992

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Do I trust the owners of private institutions more...yeah. Generally private businesses goal is to turn a profit and I find nothing inherently wrong with that, in fact generally its beneficial. In the free market, people vote with their money. Dont like those corporations dont use them.
Where I do have a problem with Apple, Facebook, Amazon, ect is there interactions and lobbying with government. Interestingly your consistently targeting republicans while these companies are largely liberal. Its not just fossil sector that profits, lobbies, and gains subsidies.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/12/green-energy-2020-boosted-dems/
I dont appreciate this on any side of the isle.

You however seem to be all over the place and contradictory on issues surrounding subsidies and government. Youll say in your response to me and May, government is too big and rally against subsidies in one area while arguing against free market and for subsidies in other areas.
Then you make a statement like this at me: "If the honorable Michael Elpers disagrees with something, then America should not subsidize it?"
No absolutely not. I am consistent. I like free market, little government, no subsidies period.
You are the one thats wants you, the government, or some other authority to be the arbitor of whats worth supporting and whats not. Your question is directly applicable to yourself.
I trust in the liberty of the individual.

"I´ve read that we´ve become less respectable and more suspicious because of his withdrawal. But hey, isolationism, ain´t it grand?"

Maybe form your own opinion and dont let someone copy and paste it for you. I imagine thats why you have so many contradictions in your opinions on subsidies and government intervention in the markets.
Isolationism is neither good or bad. The world for example once thought slavery was fine, being isolationist in that ideology was most certainly good.

You need to reread my analogy. I am not criticizing green energy for being new and currently producing less jobs. Im actually criticizing its inefficiency and cost. It has half the jobs but only produces 10% vs 80%.

"Many of these poor people are fleeing countries BECAUSE of climate catastrophes."
I guess you also never watched the ted talk where he stated solar panels for example have toxic wastes associated with Lithium and where does a majority of it get shipped to...poor countries.
Additionally while warm related deaths increase, cold related deaths decrease.
Overall this was not my point. You think people in destitute poverty have the luxury to care about where there energy is coming from? You want to be the one to tell them not light fires even though that is there only heat source?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/hot-cold-extreme-temperature-deaths/

"you´re saying only corps. who believe in climate change should foot the bill? Hah? You mean like the energy sector is doing (sarcasm)?"

No not just private corps, private individuals such as yourself. Again, you, not I state that cost is not relevant. Well then reject use of fossil fuels for your home, donate to science, lead the research, pay for others to use green energy. Do something yourself dont hide behind using the taxpayer.

When did I indicate I was a "clean coal guy". I prefer nuclear energy and have no problem with other energy forms, but I also understand the cost, inefficencies, and environmental costs of alternative energies. Integrating an approach of Improving the efficiency/cleanliness that developing countries will continue to use may actually reduce emissions/overall environmental harm than full scale switch to currently expensive innefficient alternatives.

Delilah6120

@MichaelElpers

I listened to the Michael Shellenberger TED talk. Thank you. It was very interesting. I looked into his background and it appears he is a centrist and an interesting character and also a fierce advocate for nuclear energy.

He made some great arguments against renewable energy; one in which I was unaware of is the land mass clearing of wildlife needed to accommodate renewable energy wind turbines. Another point made: renewable energy is likely to be less efficient - not due to technical issues - but due to natural issues such as lack of sun, lack of water, lack of wind. But I can´t help wonder if the lack of natural resources needed to power renewable energy is precisely why we need to transition as quickly as possible - so we have more of - and stronger natural resources.

I was unaware also that France gets half of its electricity from nuclear power. Another argument for nuclear energy is that it requires 450x less land than solar requires and that solar requires 17X more materials than nuclear plants. I guess the question to ask is not why are we transitioning from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy. The question is why are we not transitioning to nuclear energy?

I am going to look more into why we´re not relying more on nuclear. One thing immediately comes to mind is obvious - the dangers of nuclear plants. I will look into this more.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; I'm an American Patriot who loathes your presence in my Nation which was not founded for your liberal, woke, insanity...I despise your very existence here.

Delilah6120

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Being an American patriot involves a deep-seated love for one's country and a commitment to upholding its principles, values, and ideals for the betterment of all its ciizens.

Your claim as being a Patriot is delusional.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; Advocating for sexual perversion; murdering babies in the womb; open borders allowing for a death invasion; supporting HAMAS and alienating Israel; weaponizing the DOJ and stealing elections; defunding the police; legalizing drug use; destroying meritocracy for DEI and Affirmative Action; supporting drag queen story hour for children; placing pornography in children's school libraries...these are NOT Patriotic or love of Country...they're the attributes of vile, disgusting, Democrat-Progressives, starting foreign wars and money laundering through them...

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/02/oird7mjzwoci.jpg

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Delilah6120 ; I'm an American Patriot who loathes your presence in my Nation which was not founded for your liberal, woke, insanity...I despise your very existence here.

I'm an American Patriot who loathes your presence in my Nation which is was not founded for your liberal, woke, insanity...I despise your very existence here.

Very anti Elohim of you.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Elohim does not approve of your ideology of perversion, infanticide, either.

MayCaesar

Delilah6120 said:

I agree with some of this. But I do not agree with your assessment that collectivism or individualism is about who holds power over human life. Perhaps an individualist, with autonomy being most crucial, is especially sensitive to being controlled? Collectivism is more about the comfort of unity and harmony within a collective society. I do not see it as holding power over others or ¨forcing¨ others. Where I agree somewhat is that the collective many may unintentionally hold power over one disagreeing autonomous individual. But it is not as nefarious as you make it out to be (again, IMO as a collectivist, as I view prioritizing POWER over someone to be nefarious in itself). The collectivist also may have policies imposed on them by the government that they also may not agree with.

No, not at all. Harmony is created by individuals interacting with each other in pleasant ways; it has nothing to do with the collective. Collectivism by definition is a top-down view: from the collective to the individual. Individualism, instead, is a bottom-up view: the sovereign individual is the fundamental unit, and the collective is formed by individuals voluntarily agreeing to cooperate. Me hanging out with my friends is harmony; me being told by my neighbors what I should wear is not.

Delilah6120 said:

It is commendable that you care about people and help them because you want to. There are millions who simply do not. We´ve become more dog eat dog in the past decade and have adopted an ¨every man for himself¨ philosophy, at least it seems to me. It seems to be a more competitive and ruthless environment we´re living in. I disagree that collectivism is a tyrannical position. Now I can see how an individualist who prioritizes his autonomy believes that collectivism can lead to tyranny because collectivists may prioritize the authority of one group over individual freedom. Collectivists tend to believe in the fostering of solidarity, cooperation, and shared responsibility for the welfare of all members of society. They may view collectivist principles as necessary for addressing social inequalities and promoting communal well-being. Could this just just because the majority rules - there are more numbers in collectivism? Collectivism may not be inherently tyrannical but rather a means to achieve greater social equity and harmony.

The question is not whether a given person helps others or not, but whether they are obliged to help them or not. Suppose someone does focus on their own life and does not care about helping others. As long as they are not hurting anyone either, why should anyone care? The idea that helping others is some kind of moral, let alone legal, directive is fundamentally tyrannical.

Collective having power over the individual is tyranny. The collective can be very benevolent - however, the very fact that it has the power to force its will on the individual makes it tyrannical. As an analogy, consider me planting a bomb with remote detonation trigger in your basement. I can be the nicest person in the world and will never press the trigger - yet do you see how the very fact of me having the power to blow you up any time I want alters the dynamic of our relationship? The fact that someone does not use the power they have does not imply that the existence of that power has no effect. As the popular saying in chess goes, "The threat is stronger than its execution".

Delilah6120 said:

Of course, we have the choice to patronize whatever stores we want. BestBuy would not be on the necessity list of stores consumers need. Your local grocery markets, gas stations, etc. are a necessity as we must eat and have gas in our vehicles. Yes I believe corporate America has pushed the boundaries of morality. American consumers are being raped. Many corporations are still using Covid and inflation to unfairly and unethically price gouge. Monopolies have created a haven for profiteering. I´m sure you´ve seen our grocery products shrinking in size - otherwise known as shrinkflation, greedflation? Thankfully the Biden administration is concentrating on antitrust enforcement of corporate profiteering. The administration is suing Amazon for jacking up prices, Apple for its monopolistic practices and has sued to block the merging of JetBlue and Spirit Airlines but there is a long way to go. So this is an example of the unbridled recklessness and greed that has severely affected our economy.

You have not yet explained the exact mechanisms that lead to the alleged "rape". Suppose a corporation employs aggressive price gouging - so what? Just do not buy from them; go somewhere else.

See, you are operating on the same fundamental collectivist assumption: that other people owe you something just by nature of coexisting with you. You think that BestBuy owes you offering products at a "reasonable" (whatever it means) price to you. But why? Why does an enterpreneur that opened his store owe you anything in particular? How about we turn it around and claim that you owe buying something from that enterpreneur even if you do not want to? What is the problem with that?

Delilah6120 said:

No doubt about it, government spending is reckless. Yes, the IRS is notoriously inefficient but again, the intended increase in funding for the IRS is meant to alleviate some of its inefficiencies. No of course you cannot go elsewhere if you´re dealing with taxes. I do not know the answer to this. Absolve the IRS with all its inefficiencies? Encourage free market tax corporations and trust them to ¨ethically¨ outperform the IRS? But still I believe your description ¨tyrannical¨ is overstated. It is a large government-run department but to assume it is tyrannical in its nature is cynical in my opinion. Inefficient and outdated, perhaps. I certainly don´t understand your assertion that working in the private sector is more benevolent than working in the public sector? Eeeks where does all this suspicion derive from? When did Americans become so cynical about our institutions?

Any businessman, any accountant, any economist will tell you the same thing: increasing funding exacerbates inefficiency. It cannot solve it, pretty much, by definition, since the inefficiency is exactly in spending money. The more money you put in, the more losses to inefficiency will be.

If you have two bank accounts, one giving you 0.1% yield, and another giving you 2% yield, putting more money into the first bank will not fix the low yield problem: it will just cause you to lose more money. Investing money into more efficient sectors of the economy and pulling them out of less efficient ones is an enterpreneur's 2+2=4.

As for benevolence, I just explained that, no? A private employee offers you a product; a public employee forces a product on you. The former is more benevolent than the latter, much like offer for consensual sex is more benevolent than raping someone.

Delilah6120 said:

I´ve experienced firsthand the outright lies that Fox spews. I understand it´s the most popular news channel for decades. Americans do love a little entertainment and eye candy served up with their news. Right off the get go, you see the group of perfectly coiffed women in their stiletto heels as bait to keep their viewers captivated and severely underinformed. It´s shockingly shallow. I believe FOX News is responsible for much fear and hate mongering being disseminated to Americans. I believe it is one reason so many are cynical, ignorant, angry and full of hate. I watch Fox occasionally and have actually done live fact checking as they commentate. Fox News is also being sued for defamation by Dominion Voting machines and Smartmatic for knowingly airing more than 100 false statements about election fraud and faulty voting machines. Come on. Bias? Using their bully pulpit to spread lies for $$$$ is beyond unethical. It should be criminal. They´ve also been involved in numerous sexual harassment scandals. Yes, other news stations may report some misdeeds but surely there is little comparison. I listen to and read BBC quite often. Trump being compared to Hitler? Well I´ve heard this from several resources. Not even going to entertain this as just his name makes me sick. No impartial individual would make this comparison? Really? And perhaps it was an Opinion piece?

I do not disagree that Fox News is a very shady reporting organization. My point is that you single them out among countless equally lousy organizations. BBC is about as bad as Fox News at this point, short of a couple of programs (such as HardTalk). New York Times can be easily even worse than Fox. Fox, at least, generally covers everything, even though with a spin - while NYT will only talk about topics that they can turn in their favor. Fox will, at least, invite commentators who they strongly disagree with (even if they barely let them speak); NYT does not do that.

Delilah6120 said:

We obviously differ in so many areas. You believe America´s freedom is dependent on extreme government skepticism? I agree that it should be viewed with some skepticism as all corporations should be. But extreme? To understand more of where your position comes from, where do you get your news? Curious.

I think that understanding the tyrannical nature of the government is the most basic prerequisite for a thriving free society. The Founding Fathers understood that, hence countless comments about the government being a necessary evil, and about the importance of the government officials being punished for the slightest transgressions.

To your last question, I have not really followed politics for years. The news that I read are mostly on science and technology. No interest in all the drama.

I have lived in a number of countries that were much less free than the US, and, sadly, I have to say that the US over time has become much closer to them than to the "land of the free" ideal I pursued when immigrating here 10 years ago. In certain particular aspects even China is freer nowadays than the US. The strangling IP laws in the US, for instance, are an abomination.

Delilah6120 said:

I agree that Americans should have a better understanding of government. I also believe Americans should have a better understanding of the private sector and its misdeeds. My support of the IRS funding in no way is determined by my loyalty to the president or party. I happen to believe it is long overdue. Your Trump hypothetical is unreasonable so I won´t respond. Yes, government spending is one of the primary contributors to our national debt. But there are other influencers and tax policies is huge. By lowering tax rates for the wealthy we actually decrease revenue. It is believed that higher taxes will actually increase revenue and help reduce deficits. Other contributors are economic downturns, interest payments, wars, the aging population increasing healthcare costs. Funding the IRS that has been severely underfunded for decades is a good start. The IRS is the department that Americans love to hate but it is essential to have. Dems believe that beefing up the IRS will greatly increase revenue as the wealthier will be held accountable to pay their taxes fairly thus increasing revenue. Is it the only solution? Of course not, but a good start.

I think that if the Americans understood how things work on the micro-level in both the private and the public sector, they would start a new revolution (which I would not approve of). For instance, did you know that there is very little correlation between the taxation rates and actual taxes collected? Or do you know how major companies pay for the new hires and how the Fed-controlled interest rate affects it? If people knew just these two things, the country would be very different.

The IRS is the highest-funded organization in the world. Its funding is also the most secure in the world. Yet you say that it is underfunded. Just... what Universe can this be true in?

Delilah6120 said:

Yes, regulations are burdensome for business owners. But deregulation causes market instability, weakening consumer protections, environmental catastrophes, monopolistic behaviors, the exploitation of workers (who needs that finger anyway), financial risks, increase in social inequality and degradation in the quality of services. We need regulation to promote efficiency and innovation and to ensure workers are not exploited for profit.

In my view, I counter your statement ¨society is only every relatively free if it views the government with extreme skepticism¨ is True freedom only exists when all members of society, especially the most marginalized and oppressed are free.

Collectivism vs. Individualism

Market instability is the essential feature of the market. Much like in human body, instabilities allow the inefficient and obsolete parts of the market to die and be replaced by freshly grown ones. "Financial risks" is something anyone without perfect knowledge (which means absolutely everyone) is subjected to. What do you hope for, everyone being able to predict the profit of their startup in 20 years?

As to the other things... I am not going to comment on everything, but suffice to say that those are bizarre criticisms given that the government is the biggest monopoly by definition, consumers have 0 protections before its actions, it is the only organization in the US that is able to dictate what the workers should do, it offers some of the lowest-quality services, and there is no bigger inequality than between a regular citizen and someone with a gun, sanctioned to use it.

It comes back to the most obvious thing: nobody forces you to interact with private organizations that you dislike, but you are not free to not interact with the government. That alone makes other considerations, at most, worthy of a fine print somewhere on the back of the book.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Louisiana legislature approves bill reclassifying 2 abortion drugs as controlled substances

In this Debate

Read the article in its entirety. Post your views on Trump´s foreign policy when he was in office.

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch