2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

On Monday, Hillary Clinton says in a speech she plans on raising taxes on the middle class. The people in the crowd enthusiastically cheer her comment. And people have the audacity to say Trump's supporters are out of touch.

One good thing... At least this time she's telling the truth.

A cursory glance at her policies would reveal that she doesn't plan on raising taxes on the middle class.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

A cursory glance at her policies would reveal that she doesn't plan on raising taxes on the middle class.

I suspect Hillary Clinton hopes to win the election because people will only make cursory glances at her policies. Several of her tax increase proposals directly affect middle income Americans. These include a 28% cap on itemized deductions, payroll tax hikes on all Americans, a steep soda tax, a 25% national gun tax, and her campaign manager John Podesta said she is also considering a carbon tax.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

...her campaign manager John Podesta said she is also considering a carbon tax.

You know that's only a bad thing if you're still pretending climate change isn't real, right?

ancapailldorcha

oscarBravo wrote: »

You know that's only a bad thing if you're still pretending climate change isn't real, right?

Not sure what the problem with a carbon tax is to be honest. There are even libertarians behind it.

Mr Freeze

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not sure what the problem with a carbon tax is to be honest. There are even libertarians behind it.

As long as the money collected is spent on the environment or environmental issues, its fine.

I doubt that was the case with the carbon tax in Ireland, it was/is just another way to raise taxes.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

I suspect Hillary Clinton hopes to win the election because people will only make cursory glances at her policies. Several of her tax increase proposals directly affect middle income Americans. These include a 28% cap on itemized deductions, payroll tax hikes on all Americans, a steep soda tax, a 25% national gun tax, and her campaign manager John Podesta said she is also considering a carbon tax.

Whats trumps tax plan can't find it anywhere?

Update found it:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Mr Freeze

Amerika wrote: »

I suspect Hillary Clinton hopes to win the election because people will only make cursory glances at her policies......

Amerika wrote: »

On Monday, Hillary Clinton says in a speech she plans on raising taxes on the middle class. The people in the crowd enthusiastically cheer her comment. And people have the audacity to say Trump's supporters are out of touch.

Did you take more than a glance at that video before you posted it. Because when you listen to it, she does not say she is raising taxes on the middle class.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I suspect Hillary Clinton hopes to win the election because people will only make cursory glances at her policies. Several of her tax increase proposals directly affect middle income Americans. These include a 28% cap on itemized deductions, payroll tax hikes on all Americans, a steep soda tax, a 25% national gun tax, and her campaign manager John Podesta said she is also considering a carbon tax.

The 28% cap only affects single people earning over $191,000 per year or married people earning over $231,000 per year. Kind of stretching the definition of middle income.

She isn't proposing payroll tax increases.

America has a huge obesity problem. A soda tax is a good idea, it's also a tax that will have little impact on people's income. Not that she's proposing one either although she has supported Philadelphia's soda tax.

There are over 10,000 gun homicide victims in America annually. It seems appropriate that gun owners pay some of the cost they inflict upon society annually. Not that she is proposing a gun tax either.

A carbon tax is a good thing. There aren't many/any reasonable arguments that can really be made against it.

Mr Freeze wrote: »

As long as the money collected is spent on the environment or environmental issues, its fine.

I doubt that was the case with the carbon tax in Ireland, it was/is just another way to raise taxes.

It doesn't matter what the revenues are spent on as long as it isn't spent on subsidising fossil fuels. The revenue could be spent on sending hand painted portraits of Donald Trump to every home in America and it would still be a good idea.

Mr Freeze

Suryavarman wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the revenues are spent on as long as it isn't spent on subsidising fossil fuels. The revenue could be spent on sending hand painted portraits of Donald Trump to every home in America and it would still be a good idea.

I might disagree with the Trump paintings bit. :pac:

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

You know that's only a bad thing if you're still pretending climate change isn't real, right?

That statement is gob****e, and you know it. No one denies climate change. Climate change has been happening since the dawn of earth and will continue untill the sun expands and swallows us up... with or without any human influence.

To start off, though, how about we address my comment. It is not indisputable that a carbon tax with adversely affect the pocketbooks of middle class Americans, right?

Can you prove that a carbon tax in the US, even in the best case, can only produce a marginal impacts on climate? If the US were to completely stop using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace our emissions in less than eight years, and if we reduced the CO2 emissions of our entire transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years. So what good will it do other than cause the economic collapse of America? Maybe that's the real goal.

A carbon tax would target 85% of the energy we use, and be used by politicians to dole money to their favored constituencies whose technologies are unrealistic and extremely costly in reducing greenhouse gasses. Bottom line a carbon tax will do little more than make democrat supporters and lobbyists rich, the middle class poorer, and force more industries to leave America.

Of course there still is a slight chance a boy sticking his finger in the crack of the dike might just save it from collapsing and destroying the city downstream, right?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

The 28% cap only affects single people earning over $191,000 per year or married people earning over $231,000 per year. Kind of stretching the definition of middle income.

Not according to Hillary.

She isn't proposing payroll tax increases.

Yes she is.

America has a huge obesity problem. A soda tax is a good idea, it's also a tax that will have little impact on people's income. Not that she's proposing one either although she has supported Philadelphia's soda tax.

There are over 10,000 gun homicide victims in America annually. It seems appropriate that gun owners pay some of the cost they inflict upon society annually. Not that she is proposing a gun tax either.

All hail the nanny state, eh?

A carbon tax is a good thing. There aren't many/any reasonable arguments that can really be made against it.

I just made some.

It doesn't matter what the revenues are spent on as long as it isn't spent on subsidising fossil fuels. The revenue could be spent on sending hand painted portraits of Donald Trump to every home in America and it would still be a good idea.

Funny, but if I had said something like that, there would be little doubt you wouldn't see me here for another four days, because of some faux outrage. Double standards rule, baby!

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

That statement is gob****e, and you know it. No one denies climate change. Climate change has been happening since the dawn of earth and will continue untill the sun expands and swallows us up... with or without any human influence.

To start off, though, how about we address my comment. It is not indisputable that a carbon tax with adversely affect the pocketbooks of middle class Americans, right?

Can you prove that a carbon tax in the US, even in the best case, can only produce a marginal impacts on climate? If the US were to completely stop using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace our emissions in less than eight years, and if we reduced the CO2 emissions of our entire transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years. So what good will it do other than cause the economic collapse of America? Maybe that's the real goal.

A carbon tax would target 85% of the energy we use, and be used by politicians to dole money to their favored constituencies whose technologies are unrealistic and extremely costly in reducing greenhouse gasses. Bottom line a carbon tax will do little more than make democrat supporters and lobbyists rich, the middle class poorer, and force more industries to leave America.

Of course there still is a slight chance a boy sticking his finger in the crack of the dike might just save it from collapsing and destroying the city downstream, right?

Climate change is seriously influenced by human activity. To say otherwise is to be jaw-droppingly ignorant of the facts.

America has signed up to international agreements to reduce carbon emissions. The best way to reduce those emissions is with a carbon tax.

It doesn't matter what everyone else does. The fact is American's stand to lose more from climate change than almost any other country on the planet. Carbon also has plenty of negative local effects too. A carbon tax is justified and a good policy no matter what any other country does. It isn't even worth any other country doing anything about climate change unless America gets its act together and stops giving the anti-science extremists in the Republican party the time of day and starts taking climate change seriously.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Yes she is.

Where on her website does it say that?

All hail the nanny state, eh?

It has nothing to do with the nanny state. It's called Pigouvian taxation.

I just made some.

No you didn't.

Funny, but if I had said something like that, there would be little doubt you wouldn't see me here for another four days, because of some faux outrage. Double standards rule, baby!

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Climate change is seriously influenced by human activity. To say otherwise is to be jaw-droppingly ignorant of the facts.

America has signed up to international agreements to reduce carbon emissions. The best way to reduce those emissions is with a carbon tax.

It doesn't matter what everyone else does. The fact is American's stand to lose more from climate change than almost any other country on the planet. Carbon also has plenty of negative local effects too. A carbon tax is justified and a good policy no matter what any other country does. It isn't even worth any other country doing anything about climate change unless America gets its act together and stops giving the anti-science extremists in the Republican party the time of day and starts taking climate change seriously.

Truth is, and if we were brutally honest, genocide the only way to save the planet in the long term. Everything else is virtually meaningless.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

Can you prove that a carbon tax in the US, even in the best case, can only produce a marginal impacts on climate? If the US were to completely stop using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace our emissions in less than eight years, and if we reduced the CO2 emissions of our entire transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years. So what good will it do other than cause the economic collapse of America? Maybe that's the real goal.

The tragedy of the commons (the global climate) is known and understood. Agreements towards protecting that commons are extremely important and realistically the only viable way of doing so. There is no one-world-government that can order carbon neutral or negative policies to be enacted globally, and so voluntary and meaningful targeted reductions of carbon globally are needed.

How do we achieve that? By individual nations reducing their carbon emissions. That includes the US. Each marginal reduction alone seems small and meaningless in the context of the great whole picture, but the summation of all of those marginal reductions, across all of the globe is just about the only way to slow our effect.

Are you being just a little bit Helen Lovejoy in suggesting that a carbon tax will cause the economic collapse of America?

Amerika wrote: »

A carbon tax would target 85% of the energy we use, and be used by politicians to dole money to their favored constituencies whose technologies are unrealistic and extremely costly in reducing greenhouse gasses. Bottom line a carbon tax will do little more than make democrat supporters and lobbyists rich, the middle class poorer, and force more industries to leave America.

The argument regarding the costs (direct) of fossil fuels vs costs (direct) of green energy are currently compelling enough. There really is a big difference in those direct costs.

The indirect costs however are nowhere near as clear cut.

Those indirect costs do get borne of course, just not at the exact time of usage. Much like Governments discuss National Debt as 'saddling their grandchildren with debt', the same could be said about the indirect costs simply being passed to later generations.

Sometimes it's best to think the long-game as a Government.

Amerika wrote: »

Of course there still is a slight chance a boy sticking his finger in the crack of the dike might just save it from collapsing and destroying the city downstream, right?

Given his incredible propensity to deliver nothing like any of his promises, it would take some change of fortunes for that to occur.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

Truth is, and if we were brutally honest, genocide the only way to save the planet in the long term. Everything else is virtually meaningless.

How long term are you thinking?

South Korea's current birth & death rates would have it extinct in 700 years naturally.

Contraception, education and lifestyle choices can and should bring about a change in our population growth without any need for anything like a genocide.

MadYaker

Amerika wrote: »

Truth is, and if we were brutally honest, genocide the only way to save the planet in the long term. Everything else is virtually meaningless.

Genocide won't save the planet in the long term. There will come a day when our sun will probably expand into a supernova like lots of other stars have and it'll be game over for earth. But if you think that's a good enough reason for us to do absolutely nothing about the human race's affects on climate change then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

How long term are you thinking?

South Korea's current birth & death rates would have it extinct in 700 years naturally.

Contraception, education and lifestyle choices can and should bring about a change in our population growth without any need for anything like a genocide.

A pipe dream. The world currently has about 7 billion people. In 2050 that will probably be 9.5 billion, and by 2100 that number could reach 13 billion. The current population is already three times the long term sustainable level, unless we exhaust all the world’s natural resources. Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people.

And as things get worse, people won’t sit idly by and succumb to famine and pestilence. The future wars of the world will be for natural resources. We are already witnessing the start. I don’t know how long it will take, but it is coming, I don’t believe there is any doubt of that.

A scary thought, even I admit, but Trump or Hillary's use of nuclear weapons as global wars break out might just result, long term, in the only real way to save the planet.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Truth is, and if we were brutally honest, genocide the only way to save the planet in the long term. Everything else is virtually meaningless.

If we do nothing then most if not all of the world will be uninhabitable within a couple of hundred years. If we actually take things seriously and make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions there is a chance the Earth will inhabitable a few million years from now. This can be done without genocide but it can't be done without policies such as carbon taxation.

Amerika

MadYaker wrote: »

Genocide won't save the planet in the long term. There will come a day when our sun will probably expand into a supernova like lots of other stars have and it'll be game over for earth. But if you think that's a good enough reason for us to do absolutely nothing about the human race's affects on climate change then that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Please provide me me some reliable figures on the outcome, of what you feel can be done, will have on climate change, keeping in mind what happens with population growth and nations that do little to nothing to change climate change. I believe you will find that little will be accomplished in changing climate change, and the only true effect would be a transfer of wealth from richer countries to poorer countries.

Billy86

Suryavarman wrote: »

If we do nothing then most if not all of the world will be uninhabitable within a couple of hundred years. If we actually take things seriously and make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions there is a chance the Earth will inhabitable a few million years from now. This can be done without genocide but it can't be done without policies such as carbon taxation.

"But I'll likely be dead in 50-60 years, so why should I care about anything beyond that?"

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

A pipe dream. The world currently has about 7 billion people. In 2050 that will probably be 9.5 billion, and by 2100 that number could reach 13 billion. The current population is already three times the long term sustainable level, unless we exhaust all the world’s natural resources. Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people.

And as things get worse, people won’t sit idly by and succumb to famine and pestilence. The future wars of the world will be for natural resources. We are already witnessing the start. I don’t know how long it will take, but it is coming, I don’t believe there is any doubt of that.

A scary thought, even I admit, but Trump or Hillary's use of nuclear weapons as global wars break out might just result, long term, in the only real way to save the planet.

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:KOR:JPN:PRK&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:EAS&idim=country:KOR:JPN:PRK:CHN:USA:IND:PAK:IRL:POL&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Global Fertility Rate has halved in the last 50 years and is continuing to reduce towards the 'developed' convergence which appears to be approximately 1.75.

(By Region here)

Excellent animation available here (GapMinder)

Click Play to see the figures from 1960->2011 across all nations.

That trend continuing as increased education and wealth spreads throughout the globe will see war-less reductions.

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

Carbon also has plenty of negative local effects too.

Like?

Amerika wrote: »

A pipe dream. The world currently has about 7 billion people. In 2050 that will probably be 9.5 billion, and by 2100 that number could reach 13 billion. The current population is already three times the long term sustainable level, unless we exhaust all the world’s natural resources. Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people.

And as things get worse, people won’t sit idly by and succumb to famine and pestilence. The future wars of the world will be for natural resources. We are already witnessing the start. I don’t know how long it will take, but it is coming, I don’t believe there is any doubt of that.

A scary thought, even I admit, but Trump or Hillary's use of nuclear weapons as global wars break out might just result, long term, in the only real way to save the planet.

Nice fatalism.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

If we do nothing then most if not all of the world will be uninhabitable within a couple of hundred years. If we actually take things seriously and make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions there is a chance the Earth will inhabitable a few million years from now. This can be done without genocide but it can't be done without policies such as carbon taxation.

When you say 'we' I suspect you really mean just America. And as long as America sticks to any and all agreements, other countries feel they are allowed to deviate, lie and cheat in their commitments as circumstances dictate. Economics will always trump any agreements regarding climate change. That, unlike the climate, will never change. At least I accept reality.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

When you say 'we' I suspect you really mean just America. And as long as America sticks to any and all agreements, other countries feel they are allowed to, deviate, lie and cheat in their commitments as circumstances dictate. Economics will always trump any agreements regarding climate change. That, unlike the climate, will never change. At least I accept reality.

There is an economic argument against climate change.

The indirect costs of climate change are immeasurably big. They must indeed be borne.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

Like?

Nice fatalism.

From Scientific America:

A running mantra through the climate debate is that global warming is global indeed. Now, however, a scientist has found that localized "CO2 domes" could increase urban smog and other air pollution problems.

In a study published in Environmental Science & Technology, Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson estimated that the effect could cause the premature deaths of 50 to 100 people a year in California and 300 to 1,000 for the continental United States. By comparison, anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 people a year die in air pollution-related deaths.

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:KOR:JPN:PRK&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:EAS&idim=country:KOR:JPN:PRK:CHN:USA:IND:PAK:IRL:POL&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Global Fertility Rate has halved in the last 50 years and is continuing to reduce towards the 'developed' convergence which appears to be approximately 1.75.

(By Region here)

Excellent animation available here (GapMinder)

Click Play to see the figures from 1960->2011 across all nations.

That trend continuing as increased education and wealth spreads throughout the globe will see war-less reductions.

The best population estimates can be found here.

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

When you say 'we' I suspect you really mean just America. And as long as America sticks to any and all agreements, other countries feel they are allowed to, deviate, lie and cheat in their commitments as circumstances dictate.

The EU emits less than half the CO2 per capita the US does. France emits less than one-third the amount the US does per capita. Come back to me when you catch up with the rest of the world.

Economics will always trump any agreements regarding climate change. That, unlike the climate, will never change. At least I accept reality.

Glad you brought up economics. 97% of economists support a carbon tax.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

The best population estimates can be found here.

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf

Which agrees utterly with my sentiments.

page 3

After 2050, Africa is expected to be the only major area still experiencing substantial population growth.

2.1 is the readily agreed replacement rate.

page 5

According to the medium variant of the 2015 Revision, global fertility is projected to fall from 2.5 children per woman in 2010-2015 to 2.4 in 2025-2030 and 2.0 in 2095-2100.

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

From Scientific America:

One study with the MIT lad disagreeing. Not exactly compelling yet.