Conservatives and teabaggers punk themselves again

[boutons_deux]

Before (Ireland's) Bankruptcy, Conservatives Touted Ireland As Model For U.S.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) praised the Irish economy for its low corporate tax rate and said that if the U.S. would just follow suit, companies would “be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment.” And McCain was far from the only conservative making the “Celtic Tiger” argument that Ireland’s low tax rates were a shining, successful model of conservatism in action. Some examples:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/02/celtic-tiger-flip/

=============

So what say they now? :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

*yawn*

And the democrats were pumping Spain as a green jobs example.

We saw how that worked out.

[Parker2112]

got'em, coach.

[DarrinS]

Greece is the model we should be following.

[RandomGuy]

*yawn*

And the democrats were pumping Spain as a green jobs example.

We saw how that worked out.

Spain may be the beneficiary of that over-investment in solar yet.


As the U.N. climate summit continues in Cancún, the Guardian's environment correspondent, Jonathan Watts, looks at one problem not likely to improve soon -- the Middle Kingdom's ravenous appetite for cheap coal.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/02/china_s_addiction_to_coal

There is every indication that China's ravenous appetite for coal will continue, and likely put some demand strain on global supply, IMO.

Coal is still *the* primary go-to source for electrical generation.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html


China began to increase its coal imports at the end of 2008, while accelerating the closure of the country's small, inefficient, and comparatively less safe mines in Shanxi Province. Shanxi has typically been China's top coal-producing region, and although it appears to have produced more coal in 2009 than in 2008, production was not sufficient to keep up with demand, creating coal shortages within the region that contributed to the need for imports. However, past consolidations in other Chinese provinces suggest that the country could quickly reopen small mines should international supplies tighten and international coal prices rise substantially.

The removal of coal import tariffs is a possible indication of China's intention to import large quantities of coal, at least in the short term, while Shanxi's coal industry is being restructured. An expected influx of dry bulk carriers beginning in 2010 may provide another short-term boost for Chinese coal imports by lowering the cost of bulk freight. The country may also manage any coal supply deficit in the future by importing more coal overland (trade that is not captured in Table 9) from new production sources in Mongolia and Russia. In addition, China plans to build strategic coal stocks in various provinces as a hedge against future volatility in coal import levels and prices.

We'll see. Spain went a bit farther than it should have and could have done its solar build-up a bit better, but I think it's 10-20 prospects are good.

[boutons_deux]

"China's ravenous appetite for coal will continue"

American coal companies intend to sell lots of coal to China.

[boutons_deux]

Unregulated financial sector really showed the world how great "free markets" are.

Iceland bankrupt, Ireland bankrupt, USA bankrupt, whoever's-next-bankrupt, what's not to love?

[Parker2112]

the more control we grant to big govt the more that power will be bought. The less control we grant, the more legislators will be bribed to grant more control against the people's will.

centralized power is irresistable to the elite, and to think that there is anything anyone can do to put it out of reach of those who crave it is to deny the course of our country over the last century.

Wake up Boutons.

[Parker2112]

conceding control back to the states is the only option, give the people the right to govern themselves the way they wish. put an end to washingtons governing against the will of teh people and for the will of big $

[Parker2112]

some states will choose wise policies, some wont. but for those that fail, they can expect to see exodus.

[ElNono]

Greece is the model we should be following.

http://www.funnypictureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/NotSureIfSerious.jpg

[Drachen]

Greece is the model we should be following.

Currently.... I agree. Raise taxes and cut spending to lower deficit.

[spursncowboys]

raise taxes for everyone and cut spending to only things that benefit all people paying taxes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

raise taxes for everyone and cut spending to only things that benefit all people paying taxes.

what about those currently out of work? They don't pay taxes. Are they out of luck? What about the people who don't pay taxes yet send their kids to public schools? Should we penailze the kids because their parents don't pay taxes?

[Drachen]

cut from all of it. ALL.

[Wild Cobra]

what about those currently out of work? They don't pay taxes. Are they out of luck? What about the people who don't pay taxes yet send their kids to public schools? Should we penailze the kids because their parents don't pay taxes?
Idiot.

Unemployment insurance isn't a tax.

Schools are paid by property taxes, which you pay by owning, or indirectly by renting.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Idiot.

Unemployment insurance isn't a tax.

Schools are paid by property taxes, which you pay by owning, or indirectly by renting.

SNC Stated that anyone who doesn't pay taxes should not benefit from govt programs. I was referring to free school lunches idiot.. Obviously I have spell things out for you.

do you have a reading comprehension problem mr 'I am in the top 1% of intelligence'?

[CosmicCowboy]

Schools are paid by property taxes, which you pay by owning, or indirectly by renting.

Not exactly true, at least in Texas. Currently in Texas the average is 49% from property taxes, 41% from state funds, and 10% from the Feds. Percentages can vary from school district to school district with poorer districts getting a larger percentage from State/Fed sources.

[boutons_deux]

these morans are punking themselves non-stop

Tea Bagger Caucus is asking for $1B in those hated earmarks. :lol

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/tea-party-caucus-takes-1-billion-earmarks/

[Wild Cobra]

Not exactly true, at least in Texas. Currently in Texas the average is 49% from property taxes, 41% from state funds, and 10% from the Feds. Percentages can vary from school district to school district with poorer districts getting a larger percentage from State/Fed sources.
And it doesn't need to be that way. Too top heavy.

[spursncowboys]

SNC Stated that anyone who doesn't pay taxes should not benefit from govt programs. I was referring to free school lunches idiot.. Obviously I have spell things out for you.

do you have a reading comprehension problem mr 'I am in the top 1% of intelligence'?
No you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant only things that benefit everyone should be paid for by taxes.

[Drachen]

No you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant only things that benefit everyone should be paid for by taxes.

This is a slippery slope and I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, per se, but how do you define "benefiting everyone?" It is really easy to justify just about everything this way, or to disqualify everything this way. On one hand, one could say that free school lunches benefit everyone because malnutrition makes it very difficult to learn, an educated society benefits the nation at large through greater ability to be productive than an uneducated society. Therefore, free school lunch benefits everyone.

On the other hand Joe Hippie doesn't believe that cars are good for the environment and therefore walks everywhere he goes. He doesn't use the roads, they are not benefiting everyone and therefore should be defunded.

Yes these are extreme examples (especially the latter), but you know the country we live in today. Extreme examples are par for the course with regards to political discourse.

I am seriously not trying to be a d-bag and undercut you, just wanted to know if you have any idea how to define what you are suggesting.

[frodo]

No you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant only things that benefit everyone should be paid for by taxes.

agreed but that never actually happened. I assume the wars were also funded primarily by tax money but i hardly see any benefit the wars give. GWB launched the war against Saddam in a sole attempt of destroying all WMD in Iraq but they found none of it. Saddam was a tyrant but no way a terrorist, though he appeared somewhat pro-terror. There are still numerous tyrannies in the world but it's obviously beyond Uncle Sam's power to emancipate all of them.

[frodo]

This is a slippery slope and I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, per se, but how do you define "benefiting everyone?" It is really easy to justify just about everything this way, or to disqualify everything this way. On one hand, one could say that free school lunches benefit everyone because malnutrition makes it very difficult to learn, an educated society benefits the nation at large through greater ability to be productive than an uneducated society. Therefore, free school lunch benefits everyone.

On the other hand Joe Hippie doesn't believe that cars are good for the environment and therefore walks everywhere he goes. He doesn't use the roads, they are not benefiting everyone and therefore should be defunded.

Yes these are extreme examples (especially the latter), but you know the country we live in today. Extreme examples are par for the course with regards to political discourse.

I am seriously not trying to be a d-bag and undercut you, just wanted to know if you have any idea how to define what you are suggesting.
instead of launching bullshit wars one after another, pentagon/house should just reduce the army to 1/10 its current size and banish all these advanced weapons, then the terrorists & other American enemies will have mercy on US and stop sabotaging US. u must agree on this tbh.

[ducks]

usa needs to file for Bankruptcy

and quit bailing out other countries

[ducks]

Unregulated financial sector really showed the world how great "free markets" are.

Iceland bankrupt, Ireland bankrupt, USA bankrupt, whoever's-next-bankrupt, what's not to love?

usa is bankkrupt because the people get elected are rich spoiled brats who have tons of money to buy them into office
they love to spend money
they do not know how to budget
they spend more money then they make
they give millons away to other countries even though it cost the usa trillions to give them millions

has nothing to do with the financial sector

quite blaming other sectors
blame the goverment for being bankrupt

yes I know you want the gov to be bigger but they can not do any thing right why make them bigger

[ducks]

what about those currently out of work? They don't pay taxes. Are they out of luck? What about the people who don't pay taxes yet send their kids to public schools? Should we penailze the kids because their parents don't pay taxes?

you know what
back when this country was founded older kids worked and worked the farm they could not afford to send their older kids to school

guess what
that kepted those kids out of trouble and they learned more then alot of kids learn in school now

[ducks]

file for Bankruptcy
then make a law congress can not spend more money then what comes in

[RandomGuy]

file for Bankruptcy
then make a law congress can not spend more money then what comes in

The US should "file for bankruptcy?"


I... have no words...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1473

[boutons_deux]

The next Crush-Magic-Negro's-Little-Balls-Yet-Again moment for the Repugs will be the battle over the debt ceiling, in the Repugs' nihilistic gut or shut govt campaign.

If the Repugs force a govt default on debt interest and bonds, it's gonna be fun.

[spursncowboys]

This is a slippery slope and I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, per se, but how do you define "benefiting everyone?" It is really easy to justify just about everything this way, or to disqualify everything this way. On one hand, one could say that free school lunches benefit everyone because malnutrition makes it very difficult to learn, an educated society benefits the nation at large through greater ability to be productive than an uneducated society. Therefore, free school lunch benefits everyone.

On the other hand Joe Hippie doesn't believe that cars are good for the environment and therefore walks everywhere he goes. He doesn't use the roads, they are not benefiting everyone and therefore should be defunded.

Yes these are extreme examples (especially the latter), but you know the country we live in today. Extreme examples are par for the course with regards to political discourse.

I am seriously not trying to be a d-bag and undercut you, just wanted to know if you have any idea how to define what you are suggesting.

No i didn't take this as you being a douche. i was thinking the same thing while I was typing it. Generally anything benefiting everybody, not personally but as a whole. For instance I am not saying not funding libraries and museums. The paying for lunch though is a stretch for me. I don't think it is the government's role in making sure kids eat. Parents should be held responsible for this kind of thing. I do see the reasoning behind children who are fed probably make better grades which make more educated citizens which make lower probability of criminals and/or create higher income which makes higher taxes brought in.

[spursncowboys]

agreed but that never actually happened. I assume the wars were also funded primarily by tax money but i hardly see any benefit the wars give. GWB launched the war against Saddam in a sole attempt of destroying all WMD in Iraq but they found none of it. Saddam was a tyrant but no way a terrorist, though he appeared somewhat pro-terror. There are still numerous tyrannies in the world but it's obviously beyond Uncle Sam's power to emancipate all of them.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjewix5TowttX0Ejb5KqCP-sqUE_W58tFdFpDMK-ze3NwgyhEO

[RandomGuy]

No i didn't take this as you being a douche. i was thinking the same thing while I was typing it. Generally anything benefiting everybody, not personally but as a whole. For instance I am not saying not funding libraries and museums. The paying for lunch though is a stretch for me. I don't think it is the government's role in making sure kids eat. Parents should be held responsible for this kind of thing. I do see the reasoning behind children who are fed probably make better grades which make more educated citizens which make lower probability of criminals and/or create higher income which makes higher taxes brought in.

Parents should be held responsible, but many parents are far from being such.

Either we deal with that reality, or face the consequences of not doing so, which you point out.

I have seen, first-hand, the consequences of malnutrition on children in my own community. Setting aside the ethical/moral dimensions of that, the economic loss of what those children, someday to be adults, might have achieved but for consistant meals when they were young, erk.

Setting aside the economic dimensions, I think we have a moral duty to do so.

[spursncowboys]

Parents should be held responsible, but many parents are far from being such.

Either we deal with that reality, or face the consequences of not doing so, which you point out.

I have seen, first-hand, the consequences of malnutrition on children in my own community. Setting aside the ethical/moral dimensions of that, the economic loss of what those children, someday to be adults, might have achieved but for consistant meals when they were young, erk.

Setting aside the economic dimensions, I think we have a moral dhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/flag.gifuty to do so.

Face the consequence that we are requiring our government, non living and breathing, to raise them right now. Yeah parents should be held responsible. A moral duty for what? To make sure these kids are always fed or fed for school? If they can't come up with something for the kid to eat for lunch? Come on. I doubt you have been in a welfare line. I can assure you these people are smart and will take the "assistance" because they can. However if it is taken away then they will provide for their children.

[RandomGuy]

if [assistance] is taken away then they will provide for their children.

Link?

That is a pretty definite assertion. If it reflects reality, then you should be able to provide an economic study to back it up.

[spursncowboys]

Link?

That is a pretty definite assertion. If it reflects reality, then you should be able to provide an economic study to back it up.
:lol
As soon as I can see an economic study to back up the benefits of welfare.

[spursncowboys]

you say we are morally responsible to these kids because their parents aren't. Then you say you have to see an economic study for another POV?

[boutons_deux]

"you say we are morally responsible to these kids because their parents aren't"

The "Christian" supremacists and the Repugs say the US govt is morally and legally responsible for protecting human embryos, but they seem to be less concerned with those embryos' "equal" chances after birth for healthy nutrition, esp if those chances are paid for by govt funds.

Just this week some Repug bitch, probably wealthy, at Repug conference was fomenting for shutting down federally financed school meals, saying the parents are guilty of child abuse if they can't rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana for brekky.

[RandomGuy]

:lol
As soon as I can see an economic study to back up the benefits of welfare.

A challenge? I accept.

I could start by noting that countries with better social safety nets have better social mobility. In the US, if your parents are poor, you will be much more likely to remain that way, than in big bad socialist countries.

(hitz da google)

I'll be back. :p:

[RandomGuy]

:lol
As soon as I can see an economic study to back up the benefits of welfare.

I would note however, you made the assertion. It is your burden of proof to prove your statement, not mine to prove the opposite.

If you cannot, or will not, then one can only logically reject it.

It has been a while since I have read up on the topic, and the new studies done since welfare reform should prove interesting reading.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Face the consequence that we are requiring our government, non living and breathing, to raise them right now. Yeah parents should be held responsible. A moral duty for what? To make sure these kids are always fed or fed for school? If they can't come up with something for the kid to eat for lunch? Come on. I doubt you have been in a welfare line. I can assure you these people are smart and will take the "assistance" because they can. However if it is taken away then they will provide for their children.

you have no idea what you're talking about which is par for the course..

[The Reckoning]

sounds like they're getting alot done by hosting the UN summit in Cancun, of all places

:rolleyes