Old 11-20-2017, 07:31 AM   #126
DawnODay
Literotica Guru
 
DawnODay's Avatar
 
DawnODay is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: In the East
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
That's the nominal top rate, not what corporations actually pay after tax attorneys shift and squeeze beans. Many biggies pay little or no taxes.
Good point. Here's a classic example: D. Greenfield, How Obama and Senate Democrats Freed GE from Paying Corporate Taxes, Frontpage (Jan 7, 2013).

This is why we need to reform the tax code. Rather than have high taxes with a bunch of loopholes, we need low tax rates with no special treatment for anyone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2017, 08:54 AM   #127
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 40,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
I thought you put me on iggy. Guess not. Meanwhile, California has moved from the 7th to the 6th largest global economy. Unemployment is low. I drive various routes around the state and see it booming... unlike neighboring low-tax Nevada or stagnating Arizona. The latest I could find on state economies (2015) ranks NY as the 9th strongest, Calif at #11, Nevada at #31 and Arizona at #40. Worst is low-tax Mississippi. Try again.
It's also one of the most overpriced states in the union with million dollar single wide trailers, 12 dollar gallons of milk and 4$/gal gas.

For all of California's "progressiveness" they sure do fuckin' HATE poor AND middle class folks....elites only!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2017, 09:33 AM   #128
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Llareggub, just around the corner
Posts: 23,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
This is why we need to reform the tax code. Rather than have high taxes with a bunch of loopholes, we need low tax rates with no special treatment for anyone.
First, cutting corporate taxes by raising taxes on working people sucks. Killing SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions double-taxes earned incomes. Money from dividends and inheritances was not earned by the recipient. Apples & oranges, hey? And the corporate cashflows will enrich shareholders, many offshore, who won't likely be developing jobs in USA. Tax cuts don't grow economies. Trickle-down voodoo economics don't work.

Next, loopholes can "promote the general welfare" in specific ways. Mortgage deductions encourage home ownership -- y'know, the American Dream. SALT deductions keep local govt's solvent so they don't have to raise taxes to pay for public safety, schools, etc. Charity deductions promote charitable giving, away from the claws of gov't beasts. Et fucking cetera.

Do too many loopholes further enrich the rich and screw everyone else? Yup. And as long as a corporation is a person and cash is speech, it ain't gonna change. The first century of the American democratic republic imposed tight gov't regulation of corporations. We see what happens when they own gov't.

Last edited by Hypoxia : 11-20-2017 at 09:35 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2017, 09:43 AM   #129
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 40,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
First, cutting corporate taxes by raising taxes on working people sucks.
Awwwww someone doesn't feel like paying their fair share!!!!

Hypocrite leftist......typical.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2017, 06:20 PM   #130
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
 
dan_c00000 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,916
Bot and Dawn are getting absolutely ruined on this thread. Even fucking Forbes! came out against this travesty of a "tax plan" and Steve Forbes cheats on his taxes by declaring his one chicken a farm!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-20-2017, 07:30 PM   #131
Carnal_Flower
Literotica Guru
 
Carnal_Flower's Avatar
 
Carnal_Flower is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,556
WHat does one thing have to do with the other?

Are "progressives" the ones setting the high prices?

"Progressives" are trying to raise the min. wage, last I checked.

They're always trying to push for free tuition and/or student loans, so the dumb fucks of this world can put down their Bibles and get an education and make more $$.

They're AGAINST the "tax cuts" which are going to totally screw the middle class in CA (Blue states getting punished.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
It's also one of the most overpriced states in the union with million dollar single wide trailers, 12 dollar gallons of milk and 4$/gal gas.

For all of California's "progressiveness" they sure do fuckin' HATE poor AND middle class folks....elites only!!!
__________________
My stories
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017, 12:41 AM   #132
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 40,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
How? Nobody has even addressed what I've said much less challenged it.

So far all I've done is laugh at idiot ideologues who are regurgitating their partisan talking points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnal_Flower View Post
WHat does one thing have to do with the other?
Taxes have a price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnal_Flower View Post
Are "progressives" the ones setting the high prices?
Not setting but forcing and driving.

You can only tax (artificially incur a costs) to an industry/market to a certain extent before it drives prices up or sends it into the black market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnal_Flower View Post
"Progressives" are trying to raise the min. wage, last I checked.
Which won't work better than the last time you did and failed to fix the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnal_Flower View Post
They're always trying to push for free tuition and/or student loans, so the dumb fucks of this world can put down their Bibles and get an education and make more $$.
They don't need an education to make more $$.....they just need the government to quit putting people in jail for making money for themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnal_Flower View Post
They're AGAINST the "tax cuts" which are going to totally screw the middle class in CA (Blue states getting punished.)
Yea they want to do their tax scheme to to screw the middle class for their interests........it's only bad when (R)'s do it!!

Last edited by BotanyBoy : 11-21-2017 at 12:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017, 03:16 AM   #133
Carnal_Flower
Literotica Guru
 
Carnal_Flower's Avatar
 
Carnal_Flower is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,556
Well that's a sound argument. You should run for office somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post

They don't need an education to make more $$.....they just need the government to quit putting people in jail for making money for themselves.
__________________
My stories
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017, 05:03 AM   #134
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 40,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnal_Flower View Post
Well that's a sound argument. You should run for office somewhere.
It's true.

Nah...shit doesn't pay very well and I'm not a big enough bullshitter to win in the US.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017, 09:18 AM   #135
DawnODay
Literotica Guru
 
DawnODay's Avatar
 
DawnODay is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: In the East
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
First, cutting corporate taxes by raising taxes on working people sucks....
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
Again, dan_c00000, in the first case, you cite an opinion piece as if it were some sort of fact. Further, you even got that wrong. That is not a piece where "Forbes came out against" anything. The author, Stan Collender, is a guest contributor, as it explicitly says: "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." (I read Forbes regularly and, if you examine the guest columns in Forbes over time, you will see they print contributor opinions from all sides of these debates.) As has been pointed out about you so many times, dan_c00000, you screw up the facts.

Further, and I thank you for this, your second citation simply supports my point about why...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
Rather than have high taxes with a bunch of loopholes, we need low tax rates with no special treatment for anyone.
Overall, though, dan_c00000, as I've written before, you are getting better at this. At least you actually cite sources, unlike Hypoxia who just rants the party-line, with no detectable understanding of the issues. She laments "Killing SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions," without understanding that for the working and middle classes, this is more than compensated in the tax plan by doubling the personal exemption. "SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions" would then only really benefit the top 20%, (those making > ~$150,000.00 annually), because "killing" those deductions might, in some cases, actually raise their overall taxes. In short, the very thing she criticizes is what will lower taxes for the working and middle classes, while raising taxes on the wealthy. Is that not what you favor, Hypoxia? Whose side are you on?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017, 09:32 AM   #136
BoyNextDoor
I'm so yuge!
 
BoyNextDoor's Avatar
 
BoyNextDoor is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
Good point. Here's a classic example: D. Greenfield, How Obama and Senate Democrats Freed GE from Paying Corporate Taxes, Frontpage (Jan 7, 2013).

This is why we need to reform the tax code. Rather than have high taxes with a bunch of loopholes, we need low tax rates with no special treatment for anyone.
And you are suggesting that the House or Senate bills moving through Congress do anything close to this sort of reform?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017, 02:15 PM   #137
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 40,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyNextDoor View Post
And you are suggesting that the House or Senate bills moving through Congress do anything close to this sort of reform?
Can you not read?

He didn't suggest anything of the sort.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2017, 03:16 AM   #138
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
 
JackLuis's Avatar
 
JackLuis is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: La La Calif
Posts: 14,282
__________________
JackLuis-

Here My Stories

Creative Copulation - Gods do it too!

My New Best Friend, for our VE's


Spreading Seeds Sagas- Can a young man find happiness in a world where there ten women for every man?

"Fiction writers are just liars with typing skills."
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2017, 07:52 AM   #139
DawnODay
Literotica Guru
 
DawnODay's Avatar
 
DawnODay is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: In the East
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
Good point. Here's a classic example: D. Greenfield, How Obama and Senate Democrats Freed GE from Paying Corporate Taxes, Frontpage (Jan 7, 2013).

This is why we need to reform the tax code. Rather than have high taxes with a bunch of loopholes, we need low tax rates with no special treatment for anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyNextDoor View Post
And you are suggesting that the House or Senate bills moving through Congress do anything close to this sort of reform?
I didn't suggest anything of the sort.

This is part of the reason my own Republican Senator, Ron Johnson, opposes the bill. It does not go far enough in fixing the tax code.

Meanwhile, my Democrat Senator, Tammy Baldwin, after calling for this sort of tax relief for years (while actually always voting to increase taxes), hypocritically opposes the the reform.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
Can you not read?

He didn't suggest anything of the sort.
Thank you for the support, except why do all you men think a woman incapable of holding her own in a discussion on fiscal policy? Sexist much? Or just insecure in your masculinity?

Last edited by DawnODay : 11-22-2017 at 09:28 AM. Reason: confirming citations.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2017, 02:47 PM   #140
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 40,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
Thank you for the support, except why do all you men think a woman incapable of holding her own in a discussion on fiscal policy? Sexist much? Or just insecure in your masculinity?

No problem, don't worry about your blatantly sexist ascription though I won't hold that presumptuous shit against you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2017, 05:28 PM   #141
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
 
dan_c00000 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,916
It's really not looking good for Dawn and bot. I mean absolutely ruined. It's sad really one lies about being a military vet and the other pretends to be a girl on the internet. Sad, sad, sad.

I've notice Dawn still hasn't even attempted to provide proof that tax cut for the rich provides any benefits for the people Trump told only he could fix it.

Sorry guys you're getting destroyed and it's really pathetic.

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2017, 05:35 PM   #142
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 40,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
It's really not looking good for Dawn and bot. I mean absolutely ruined. It's sad really one lies about being a military vet and the other pretends to be a girl on the internet. Sad, sad, sad.

I've notice Dawn still hasn't even attempted to provide proof that tax cut for the rich provides any benefits for the people Trump told only he could fix it.

Sorry guys you're getting destroyed and it's really pathetic.

You've done nothing but blow hot air.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2017, 09:55 AM   #143
DawnODay
Literotica Guru
 
DawnODay's Avatar
 
DawnODay is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: In the East
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
It's really not looking good for Dawn and bot. I mean absolutely ruined. It's sad really one lies about being a military vet and the other pretends to be a girl on the internet. Sad, sad, sad.

I've notice Dawn still hasn't even attempted to provide proof that tax cut for the rich provides any benefits for the people Trump told only he could fix it.

Sorry guys you're getting destroyed and it's really pathetic.
I find you amusing.

The fact that you think putting up a meme graphic saying "owned" means you have won an argument in which you raise no counterpoint to the proofs offered by others is kind of cute; or at least it would be if you were about twelve years old. Is that it? Are you a kid pretending to be an adult?

You, dan_c00000, certainly are not a "man," not how I define one. A man would not feel so threatened by a woman who can hold her own in a discussion on fiscal policy, or by someone who has served his country (thank you for that, BotanyBoy, I assume you are whom he means.) A man would get a job by which he's not secretly embarrassed because he thinks it's too feminine.

As for me supposedly not providing proof of the benefit of the tax cut, allow me to quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
Overall, though, dan_c00000, as I've written before, you are getting better at this. At least you actually cite sources, unlike Hypoxia who just rants the party-line, with no detectable understanding of the issues. She laments "Killing SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions," without understanding that for the working and middle classes, this is more than compensated in the tax plan by doubling the personal exemption. "SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions" would then only really benefit the top 20%, (those making > ~$150,000.00 annually), because "killing" those deductions might, in some cases, actually raise their overall taxes. In short, the very thing she criticizes is what will lower taxes for the working and middle classes, while raising taxes on the wealthy. Is that not what you favor, Hypoxia? Whose side are you on?
As for the numbers:
The median household income is $59,000. Under the GOP plan, such households will receive a $1,182.50 tax cut.

The median family income is $73,000. Under the GOP plan, such households will receive a $1,602.00 tax cut.
L. Jacobson, Would the House GOP tax plan save a typical family $1,182?, Politifact (Nov. 3, 2017). That looks like benefiting the middle class to me.

Further:
... an analysis by the Tax Foundation estimates that going to a 20 percent corporate rate creates the equivalent of 641,000 jobs and boosts income by three percent, or almost $1,700 per family based on 2015 median income. Failing to use dynamic scoring, as the TPC study does, means that the true benefits of the Republican framework are obscured. Any true analysis of the tax plan’s effect on individuals needs to include the benefits business changes have to the economy.
A. Hendrie, Middle-class families are the real winners in the GOP tax plan, The Hill (Oct. 13, 2017). Now, I realize this is an "opinion piece," but I do not cite it solely for its ultimate conclusion. What I like about this one is that Hendrie goes through and examines various claims about the plan, shows where they are right, or where they are mistaken, then synthesizes it all for easy understanding.

I want to thank you, dan_c00000. By claiming I had not offered proof of my point, you gave me another opportunity to expand upon it and show the benefit of the proposed tax plan. Do me another favor: Unlike last year, spend a bit of time with your mom this holiday season. Don't do what you did last year and just take your plate of turkey and stuffing down to your room in your mother's basement to eat alone while you looked at Pilgrim porn.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2017, 10:56 AM   #144
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 62,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnODay View Post
I find you amusing.

The fact that you think putting up a meme graphic saying "owned" means you have won an argument in which you raise no counterpoint to the proofs offered by others is kind of cute; or at least it would be if you were about twelve years old. Is that it? Are you a kid pretending to be an adult?

You, dan_c00000, certainly are not a "man," not how I define one. A man would not feel so threatened by a woman who can hold her own in a discussion on fiscal policy, or by someone who has served his country (thank you for that, BotanyBoy, I assume you are whom he means.) A man would get a job by which he's not secretly embarrassed because he thinks it's too feminine.

As for me supposedly not providing proof of the benefit of the tax cut, allow me to quote:



As for the numbers:
The median household income is $59,000. Under the GOP plan, such households will receive a $1,182.50 tax cut.

The median family income is $73,000. Under the GOP plan, such households will receive a $1,602.00 tax cut.
L. Jacobson, Would the House GOP tax plan save a typical family $1,182?, Politifact (Nov. 3, 2017). That looks like benefiting the middle class to me.

Further:
... an analysis by the Tax Foundation estimates that going to a 20 percent corporate rate creates the equivalent of 641,000 jobs and boosts income by three percent, or almost $1,700 per family based on 2015 median income. Failing to use dynamic scoring, as the TPC study does, means that the true benefits of the Republican framework are obscured. Any true analysis of the tax plan’s effect on individuals needs to include the benefits business changes have to the economy.
A. Hendrie, Middle-class families are the real winners in the GOP tax plan, The Hill (Oct. 13, 2017). Now, I realize this is an "opinion piece," but I do not cite it solely for its ultimate conclusion. What I like about this one is that Hendrie goes through and examines various claims about the plan, shows where they are right, or where they are mistaken, then synthesizes it all for easy understanding.

I want to thank you, dan_c00000. By claiming I had not offered proof of my point, you gave me another opportunity to expand upon it and show the benefit of the proposed tax plan. Do me another favor: Unlike last year, spend a bit of time with your mom this holiday season. Don't do what you did last year and just take your plate of turkey and stuffing down to your room in your mother's basement to eat alone while you looked at Pilgrim porn.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
Temporary cuts for households, sunsetting in ten years, in order to afford permanent cuts for corporations. Fuck that.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...set-2017-11-16

Give corporations the temporary tax cuts and see what happens. You can always make them permanent if they actually do shit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2017, 02:48 PM   #145
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 62,403


Quote:
Hatch and the GOP are banking that a future Congress would not allow the tax breaks to go away when they come up in 2025 — effectively enacting a tax increase on millions of Americans — but pass a bill to extend these cuts.
If they can't be made permanent now, how can they be made permanent later? And why does the future Congress have to do it? I think they'll have quite enough on their hands.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2017, 02:15 AM   #146
JawnKarTurr
Literotica Guru
 
JawnKarTurr is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: East Coast of the United States with a great view.
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
I read of strong signs that no tax plan will arrive before the winter holidays, proving that the current Tromp-Gup regime is unable to govern. But I digress.

Circa 1972 IIRC, prominent dope-defense lawyer Tony Serra ran for mayor of San Francisco on the Platypus Party ticket. (I think it was Joe Alioto who beat him.) His program: Eliminate all city-county taxes and fees. Take over Alcatraz Island and transform it into a pricey sex-drugs-music-games-whatever casino resort, an unbridled Vegas On The Bay.

The basic idea: gov't can run profitable enterprises instead of collecting taxes. Yes, that's social ownership of SOME means of production and distraction, but it ain't much in the way of socialism. Of course a fascist (corporate-owned) state takes the opposite tack, privatizing everything profitable and leaving taxpayers to cover all losses. Welcome to Amerikkka.


So says the biased rich liberal who isolates himself from the common people.
__________________
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” - C.S. Lewis
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2017, 12:21 PM   #147
DawnODay
Literotica Guru
 
DawnODay's Avatar
 
DawnODay is offline
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: In the East
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
Temporary cuts for households, sunsetting in ten years, in order to afford permanent cuts for corporations. Fuck that.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...set-2017-11-16

Give corporations the temporary tax cuts and see what happens. You can always make them permanent if they actually do shit.
I know! It's deplorable. The reason is the lily-livered Senate wants a deficit neutral plan based on unrealistically low assumptions of GDP growth, again not learning the lessons of the 1960s, `80s, and `90s.

They should all be permanent. They can always raise them later.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2017, 09:25 PM   #148
PrincepsCyberius
Insert Witty Moniker Here
 
PrincepsCyberius's Avatar
 
PrincepsCyberius is offline
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: America's Dairyland
Posts: 4,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
The earth has warmed about 0.93 degrees already, and we are witnessing major ecological damage right now.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031

If humans can't manage to survive on the planet that gave rise to them, what makes you think they can survive on alien planets?

That 0.93 degrees number, based on the change since 1855 (why is that year considered "normal" over any other year?), though not well supported by your citation, has been consistently reported elsewhere, so I accept it.

So what?

As I wrote before (and as the paper you cite does support, thank you) other than a few alarmists who get the most press, scientists are not expecting more than another degree rise into the foreseeable future. That will put us on par with temperatures during the High Middle Ages (think of the time of the Gothic cathedrals), and still lower than temperatures during the height of the Roman and, before that, Minoan civilizations. In short, if anything, we are heading toward a period where the temperatures will match those previously experienced during some of the most productive periods of advancing human civilization.

You write of "major ecological damage." I'm not sure what that means, other than "damage" is simply a loaded term for "change." Change is the normal state of nature.

If a volcanic island explodes killing pretty much everything on it, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

If a huge meteor explodes over Siberia and knocks down and kills hundreds of square miles of virgin forest, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

If a comet hits the Earth near the future village of Chicxulub and causes the extinction of much of the planet's species, including dinosaurs, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

One specie's ecological disaster is another specie's new preferred habitat. Why do you assume the former is good and the latter is bad? I'm actually pretty happy the dinosaurs went extinct. It allowed the evolution of us.

Taking that a step further, if farmers plow up a prairie and replace it with crops that feed millions of people, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Would it be better to let those people starve?

I used to worry a lot about global warming when people first started discussing it in the 1980's. I followed the science quite closely for a decade or two, until it became politicized and much of it questionable. By then, however, I understood that the amount of climate change predicted remains within historical norms. I stopped worrying.

Which addresses your claim that "humans can't manage to survive on the planet that gave rise to them." Stop getting your opinions from Al Gore. I have not read one responsible scientist suggesting that climate change is an existential crisis. In fact, when our species evolved in southern Africa about 200,000 years ago, the planetary, not to mention the local, climate was significantly warmer than it is today. Homo sapiens is a tropical species by nature. A warmer planet just might do us some good, as it has in the past.



__________________



"In this world, you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant."


--- "Elwood P. Dowd" in Harvey by Mary Chase.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2017, 09:40 PM   #149
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 62,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincepsCyberius View Post

That 0.93 degrees number, based on the change since 1855 (why is that year considered "normal" over any other year?), though not well supported by your citation, has been consistently reported elsewhere, so I accept it.

So what?

As I wrote before (and as the paper you cite does support, thank you) other than a few alarmists who get the most press, scientists are not expecting more than another degree rise into the foreseeable future. That will put us on par with temperatures during the High Middle Ages (think of the time of the Gothic cathedrals), and still lower than temperatures during the height of the Roman and, before that, Minoan civilizations. In short, if anything, we are heading toward a period where the temperatures will match those previously experienced during some of the most productive periods of advancing human civilization.

You write of "major ecological damage." I'm not sure what that means, other than "damage" is simply a loaded term for "change." Change is the normal state of nature.

If a volcanic island explodes killing pretty much everything on it, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

If a huge meteor explodes over Siberia and knocks down and kills hundreds of square miles of virgin forest, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

If a comet hits the Earth near the future village of Chicxulub and causes the extinction of much of the planet's species, including dinosaurs, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

One specie's ecological disaster is another specie's new preferred habitat. Why do you assume the former is good and the latter is bad? I'm actually pretty happy the dinosaurs went extinct. It allowed the evolution of us.

Taking that a step further, if farmers plow up a prairie and replace it with crops that feed millions of people, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Would it be better to let those people starve?

I used to worry a lot about global warming when people first started discussing it in the 1980's. I followed the science quite closely for a decade or two, until it became politicized and much of it questionable. By then, however, I understood that the amount of climate change predicted remains within historical norms. I stopped worrying.

Which addresses your claim that "humans can't manage to survive on the planet that gave rise to them." Stop getting your opinions from Al Gore. I have not read one responsible scientist suggesting that climate change is an existential crisis. In fact, when our species evolved in southern Africa about 200,000 years ago, the planetary, not to mention the local, climate was significantly warmer than it is today. Homo sapiens is a tropical species by nature. A warmer planet just might do us some good, as it has in the past.



Humans were nearly driven extinct in the American southern plains in the 1930's. The Dust Bowl period was entirely caused by humans and their short-sighted farming practices. It took scientific study and government action to correct the farmer's mistakes. Thanks to science, nothing like that is likely to happen again.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2017, 09:47 PM   #150
PrincepsCyberius
Insert Witty Moniker Here
 
PrincepsCyberius's Avatar
 
PrincepsCyberius is offline
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: America's Dairyland
Posts: 4,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
Humans were nearly driven extinct in the American southern plains in the 1930's. The Dust Bowl period was entirely caused by humans and their short-sighted farming practices. It took scientific study and government action to correct the farmer's mistakes. Thanks to science, nothing like that is likely to happen again.
Migration is not extinction.

All the same, I agree, "nothing like that is likely to happen again." Farming techniques have evolved and future climate change, natural or man-made, poses little existential threat to our species. So what's your concern?

__________________



"In this world, you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant."


--- "Elwood P. Dowd" in Harvey by Mary Chase.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:33 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.