Re: World greenhouse gas emissions rising faster

On Nov 20, 3:02 pm, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:13:24 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 19, 8:20 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:00:18 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:13 pm, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:30:00 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 18, 11:50 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:04205bd0-8323-4d37-942c-7f6cf1dc6233@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Nov 17, 11:06 am, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7e25cbef-112b-4d8c-b7fd-ac3234a69c4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A few words that come to mind are: "tipping point" and "irreversible".

According to the Feb. 2006 report, it was already "irreversible", IIRC.
You
just had to dig into the text of the document to find those terms used.

JG

It would be interesting to know which types of government are more
able (and less able) to respond effectively to potential crises in
advance rather than wait for them to happen and then do something. I
suspect that governments that are highly dependent on ideology or
religion are the least able.

I would think that dictatorships are best able to address a problem like
Global Warming, since they do not need the approval of anyone. All the
dictator has to do is decide that he (or she) must act (has there ever been
a woman dictator?). I would think that democracies have a much harder time,
because they have to convince (con) the people that we need do act and
explain to the people why they have to suffer. Of course, that it seems to
me part of the problem. Here in the US, we hear a whole lot of people who
say we need to act, but I have heard no one say, that whatever we HAVE TO DO
is going to come at a heavy price. Kind of hard to convince people to
really make significant sacrifices now, to prevent something that may not
happen for a hundred years, if at all......

I tend to agree that some sort of authoritarian government might be
better at efficiently preventing catastrophes before they happen. I
also wonder if some sort of constitutional monarchy, like they have in
the U.K. might be good, if the monarchy had just the right amount of
power, not to much and not to little.

The British monarchy is useless, except as a tourist attraction
to entice Americans. Now that the USA is headed toward
becoming a third-world country though, Americans won't be
able to afford overseas travel anymore, so we might as well
get rid of those parasites at Windsor Castle for good and all.
If we can find a true pretender to the throne descended
from Harold, the last true king of England who was killed at
Hastings in 1066, I'll consider retaining the monarchy.

I'll accept an appointment as dictator of the USA if you
really need somebody. I have a very good record of
anticipating what things political will lead to. First items on
the agenda: get out of Iraq, end illegal immigration (though
not quite as drastically as Sir Fred chooses), tariffs and
import restrictions with special attention to Americans who
keep their corporate headquarters in the Bahamas and
wherenot to avoid taxes, and restore the pre-Reagan tax
schedule. A friend once suggested finding out every year
who the ten richest people in the USA were, taking them
out into the Rose Garden, and shooting them. I'm still up
in the air about that one, but it does sound like it might put
a bit of braking action on the worst greedinesses of
capitalism.

If we take the cap off Social Security and restore the tax system to
pre-Reagan levels (with an inflation adjustment for income) at least
long enough to pay off the national debt that Reagan and Bush created,
we can all kiss and make up and we won't have to shoot anybody.

I'm not in favour of taking the cap of Social Security
myself, because that will turn it into just a general tax
and give the Federal Government the right to raid its
assets the way it makes use of all other taxes. The
con-artists in Washington are trying to do that
anyway, so let's not give them any justification.

If SS becomes a general tax because the cap is
removed, what kind of tax would it be? A flat tax!
Just what the underworld demons want, other than
a poll tax which they'd like even better.

I'm a strong supporter of Social Security, but I'm realistic enough to
realize that there are two ways to look at the Social Security system.
One is from an ideological point of view and the other is from a
practical point of view. From an ideological point of view, the system
is already a mess in that there is a large income transfer component
to it. From a practical point of view, it also has problems since it's
headed for insolvency.

From what I've heard, that insolvency is a myth. It will
run out of money about 2040 if nothing is done, so I agree
something should be done. My choice is to raise the
retirement age, rather than increase contributions. It
won't run out of money before then because it has been
running surpluses for a long time, and that surplus money
was not just seized by the federal government, but was
put into investment vehicles. Although SS will start
spending more money than it takes in about 2015, there's
still all that money in bonds that it owns. I haven't run (or
found) the numbers myself, but here's a wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Don't let the Bush administration bamboozle you again!

I agree that Social Security is, by no means, in a crises or even near
a crises situation. None-the-less it does look like something will
have to be done in the future. If Democrats get control of the
congress and White House in 2009, then that's the time that the
adjustments should be made. Otherwise we risk a situation where the
Pugs get control again and next time they might be successful in
destroying the system. So, even though the problems have been
exaggerated out of all proportion, Democrats need to make hay while
the Sun is shining and insure that we have a Democratic solution and
not a right-wing, rip-off solution.

I suspect that the best practical solution to the probably shortfall,
will be to raise the cap, but not eliminate it entirely and to raise
the retirement ago. I posted a list of the various options and the
estimated savings, incidentally, on May 10. It's at the following URL:
http://tinyurl.com/33v3aj

Speaking purely from the ideological point of view, what should be
done is to eliminate all the income transfer components such as giving
additional money to the poor or to non-working wifes, etc. This,
however, isn't going to ever happen because it would be extremely
unpopular and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, have a vested
interested in maintaining the illusion that it's purely a retirement/
insurance program and doesn't have a welfare component.

I was never so deceived, and don't really feel anyone was
trying to deceive me. It's plain that SS rewards those who
didn't make enough to max out their contributions are rewarded
more generously, and I've often bitched that the "surviving
spouse" provision means that single people get less out of the
system statistically than married people - and it is quite a lot
less. I don't object that the less well-off are compensated
more in their old age, though I'm not as indulgent toward the
surviving spouse provision. My complaints about surviving
spouse are the same as my complaints about special treatment
for marriage in general. If people have kids, then I have no
problem with helping them out in raising kids, and in helping
them out later because their earnings potential was damaged
beyond the time they were actually raising kids. The financial
justification I'd make is that everybody's kids when they grow
up will be keeping all the old folks afloat in future. If a married
couple doesn't have kids, though, why on earth should they
expect that people who aren't married should subsidize their
lifestyle? Single people have to both work and take care of
their households. Why should married people without kids
get a pass, and get tax breaks to help them support a lifestyle
that's entirely their own choosing and is of no benefit to
anyone else?



Looking at it from a more practical point of view, eliminating the cap
on SS would solve most of the insolvency problem and would merely have
the effect of putting everyone in the same boat. Also, the flat tax
already exists for most of the working class. So, in practice,
eliminating the cap would merely extend the flat tax to the upper
classes. Also, even though everyone pays the same percentage of their
income, those with lower incomes benefit more than those with higher
incomes. So, it's not exactly the same thing as one thinks of when
talking about a "flat tax".

It would help out the (distant) insolvency problem, but with the
philosophical problem I mentioned before. Philosophical problems
don't always remain philosophical, and this is one that I would
judge won't.

SS is a flat tax, because people pay 6.7%, or whatever the number
is now, of their income into it, with their employers paying an equal
amount. Because it has a cap, it's not only flat but regressive, if
one thinks of it as just general government taxation rather than
money marked specifically to be paid out in retirement, insurance-
like. As to poor people getting proportionately more than middle-
class people out of it, "Flat tax" doesn't mean "flat returns". I do
object to the employers paying into the fund, because I see no
reason for it. If employer's didn't pay, wages would rise to cover
the difference, so it would eventually be a wash, and people would
see better how much they were actually paying. It would be a wash,
that is, if we didn't have rapacious corporate ideology that is
allowed to work against the common man, but since we do, that
consideration is significant.

A Man's A Man For A' That
http://www.robertburns.org/works/496.shtml
(the unfamiliar scottish words are clickable for
the English equivalents, such as "gowd"= "gold)

Is there for honest Poverty
That hings his head, an' a' that;
The coward slave-we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a' that!
For a' that, an' a' that.
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The Man's the gowd for a' that.

What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin grey, an' a that;
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;
A Man's a Man for a' that:
For a' that, and a' that,
Their tinsel show, an' a' that;
The honest man, tho' e'er sae poor,
Is king o' men for a' that.

Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that:
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities an' a' that;
The pith o' sense, an' pride o' worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

-- Burns

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the state of the nhs after 10 years of the one eyed nose picker....
    ... savings which would support them for a month if they lost their jobs - ... The old have less money on average than the young. ... Now knock off income tax, VAT, council tax, fuel duty, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The poor rich work harder
    ... -- from work, money worries, household chores and screaming kids (via ... These people pay at about the same income tax rate ... A prime example is the estate tax. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The poor rich work harder
    ... -- from work, money worries, household chores and screaming kids (via ... These people pay at about the same income tax rate ... A prime example is the estate tax. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Any here actually believe that unbaptised children will suffer some detriment?
    ... The government has plenty of faults, ... There's another sci-fi story which I love but whose title I've forgotten, in which there is no money but simply a system of mutually accepted obligations; free-riders don't get away with freeriding for long as they soon become known. ... That brings us into administered and and at least partly subsidised services - redistribution of income through some kind of tax system. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: This lost data row
    ... when I needed the money. ... I don't however expect the tax payer to ... my kids draining the state coffers at a later point, ... and get knocked up at 16 and get a free house, ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
Loading