jcsmith

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

All of your points say basically one thing CO2 went up. You have not connected it to warming.

The world is not warming at a rate that correlates to the known rise in CO2. The rate of warming since the 1800's is fairly consistent if you go back 1000 years we have actually cooled. So why in the last 70 years have we seen less than a degree of warming when your little chart shows the CO2 going off like fireworks?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

The Facts
 

• Yes, the climate on earth is going to change no matter what. That's part of the natural cycle of the planet.
• Humans have dramatically accelerated that rate since the industrial revolution. 
• CO2 levels are at their highest in the past 650,000 years. See below chart below from NASA.
• This is accelerating rapidly.
• There is no magic solution here, but we there are things that we can do to reduce the effects and to try to avoid reaching the point of no return.
• If we reach the point of no return there will be many serious long-term affects which we will have to deal with which will be far worse than than the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. The reason there is so much resistance to this is largely due to the amount of money it will cost certain corporations. But those short term profits will result in long term catastrophy.
•  

Even if you assume against all the scientific evidence than mankind has little to do with this change. Even if you do that, you are still left with the problem of dealing with the effects of climate change. 

Nice to see a feel good article every once in a while.

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

When fracking started in the Dakotas blue collar jobs were paying well, you have off shore jobs in the Gulf of Mexico, Truck Driving still pays a decent wage. 

 

It's a lot different today than it was in the 70's when you could take a job in a factory that allowed you to buy a house and raise a family. But it doesn't excuse the lazy mindset of folks today. Perhaps lazy isn't the correct word for many, but opportunities still exist without an expensive college degree.

 

And the 10+ million illegals in the US has also contributed to low wages.

Truck Driving jobs will be gone in a few years, and they don't pay nearly as well as they used to. I worked in the fishing industry for a number of years to pay my way through school, that used to be great money but it's not what it used to be and like trucking jobs automation is going to make things worse and worse. There are still jobs working on oil and such which pay reasonably well. But all of that stuff is hard work. To give an example, when I worked in Alaska we worked 16 1/2 hours on, 7 1/2 hours off... 7 days a week on 3 month contracts. And it was as manually hard work as you there is. The money was good, but after a few years you can't keep doing that. From there I moved on to programming in the late 90s and was making far more than I ever made in Alaska while working a much shorter day at home, and the work was easy. But not everyone can do that. Most people are going to work in an office, retail, or a factory their whole lives and they will never get very far ahead from where they began. 

Those who have success will often contribute it to their hard work, and that's not to say that this didn't play a role. But many of the people who never do and spend their entire lives without ever getting too far ahead are working just as hard.  America does offer opportunity, but hard work doesn't guarantee success. And moving forward, with automation all of those manual labor jobs, driving jobs, will be disappearing. Social programs with incentives are probably going to be the way of the world in the future. It will need to be. It's really unfair that some people have a much easier run in life than others. Of course, life isn't fair. But part of the government's job is to help ensure a quality of life for their citizens. And we've been stagnant for ages. That hasn't changed no matter who has been in office. The tax breaks here definitely helped corporate profits. But it never seems to trickle down.

I don't think illegal immigration has done all that much to contribute to low wages. We're at under 4% unemployment. And illegal immigrants are working for below minimum wage. They are working jobs that other people don't want. That's not to say they should be working at all, illegal is illegal. But we're pretty much at full employment right now. If you want a job you can find one that pays at least minimum wage. I think the larger problem is that it's really hard for anyone to live reasonably on minimum wage. 

4 minutes ago, Athens said:

Not if there is an agreement on duble tax, then you pay tax where you earned it

Which countries would those be? To my knowledge all U.S. Citizens have to file a tax return for all foreign earned income. You receive credits and a foreign tax exclusion which will reduce what you have to pay. And I think the rules and such of that varies from country to country. But I was under the impression that all Americans have to file and generally pay some taxes on foreign earned income. 

Here's an easier to read chart of actual wage growth. It's been stagnantfor a couple of years, after slow increases following the recession. It's October numbers are a spike but it's generally been flat.

Another ridiculous move that should be insulting to the people. Immigrants commit less crimes than natives. You can cherry pick one crime that any demographic has done that is horrible. It's an obvious scare tactic.

18 minutes ago, allanos said:

I wonder how many of the respondents paused to consider where the funding would come from, and how such funding might affect them.  The question is simple enough but the answer really needs a lot of input data, and consideration.

There's a good article about the Koch brothers report, and Bernie Sanders counter-argument here:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

In the end the $32.6 trillion in health care costs sounds like a large number, but that might actually be $2 trillion cheaper than what is currently in place in a best case scenario. In a worst case scenario per the report it could be $3 trillion more than what is currently in place. But either way it shows those numbers and the push at Fox News used that $32.6 trillion number rather as a dishonest scare tactic. It would be more realistic to say that Bernie's system would be between 6.5% cheaper and 9% more expensive than the current system... While also providing health care to every American. 

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

From cited link: "Operation Phalanx [Obama] cost $145 million for 14 months, while Operation Jump Start [Bush] cost $1.2 billion over two years. Both operations took resources from other Department of Defense projects, while failing to establish a transparent US-Mexico border security policy"

 

"Since 1950, only Reagan and Bush II implemented higher real growth rates in both of their first two budgets than Trump has proposed [2019]." https://mwi.usma.edu/president-trumps-2019-defense-budget-really-rank-historically/

However, military deployments under Reagan and Bush II were not for peacekeeping in the US but for overseas theater objectives. And while Trump is activating 5,200 troops for the US border, America continues a sixteen year-old war in Afghanistan where certainly an additional 5,200 troops could be put to better use than supporting the US Border Patrol as camp managers, illegal immigrant watchers and border chauffeurs!

 

So while Trump is entering into FY 2019 with a budget deficit that will eclipse $1 trillion according to CBO (https://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-1-trillion-2019-cbo-report-2018-4 ), he is squandering current funds on domestic military deployments that will not result in any strategic military advantage. That will create more budget shortfall for the Defense Department for FY 2019. Result is more waste and more debt.

And don't forget the money that was squandered on his family separation policy. Money that he took from the military, from disaster relief, etc. 

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Your comment is irrelevant to the issue. It's about whether the 14 amendment gives citizenship to people born in the USA. It has nothing at all to do with people born on the one side or another of an invisible line.

It does. Right now those children who are born in the U.S. will be U.S. citizens which will automatically grant them advantages they wouldn't have in their parent's country of origin. It's not really fair that place of birth could equate to a huge difference in quality of life, but it is. There's no question if amendment 14 grants citizenship. It does. If he tries to change it there will be a legal fight and he will likely lose that battle. But he doesn't care because this is a direct effort to appeal to a racist segment of his base ahead of the mid-terms.

It's obvious what this is. And it's also very obvious what moving all these troops to the southern border is under the guise of some immigration crisis and under cover of a caravan that is still months from reaching the border. So why waste all this taxpayer money to send and reroute all of these troops on a mission where they really are not going to have much of anything to do? Same reason. To rile up a segment of his base and try to get them active heading into the midterms. This is in essence Trump spending taxpayer money to create an advantage for his party. 

50 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Trump will soon end birthright citizenship with executive order!

I wonder what makes you feel that because one person is born on one side of an invisible line that they should be benefit more than someone in another situation?
"That's just the way it is", isn't a valid answer here. Why would you celebrate an executive order (which would turn into a huge legal fight if he tried it) which would harm babies? Is that the type of person you are? Apparently so. Perhaps if you were born on a different side of that invisible line you would feel differently.

27 minutes ago, Peasandmash said:

the dem's that want a socialist America moved to the Kingdom of Thailand and scream for democracy.  as a group they're delusional.

Actually the "socialist" America  you are referring to is an America with national health care, it's not a communist America. You do realize FOX News (the bastion of right wing news) ran a poll when Ocasion-Cortez was on their station for an interview asking people what they thought of medicare for all and expected it to go in a different direction than it did...

 Oops.

2 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

voter fraud is real, and voter ID requirements are just plain common sense.

Sure Voter Fraud is real. And it's such a tiny percentage of actual incidents that it is inconsequential. No study has found any significant amount of it. There are many times more votes suppressed than there is actual voter fraud. Yet the suppression is in the name of preventing voter fraud. The people being suppressed are disproportionately minorities, as well.  

13 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

actually the states refused to cooperate,hmmmm, i wonder why?

Not exactly. Many states fought to keep the privacy of their voters. The voter fraud commission was asking them to hand over names, social security numbers, voting history, party affiliation, registration status, etc. 

The reality though is that Trump made these claims and wasted all these taxpayer dollars on a lie. There is zero evidence... NONE... of widespread voter fraud. His own commission couldn't even find anything substantial. It's obvious why he made these claims. His ego couldn't take the fact that he lost by 3 million votes. So instead he claimed there were 3-5 million illegal voters. Just like the crowd size Trump's ego will force him to lie. Just like his rallies he will make up data to support his claims, even after it's been fact checked multiple times he'll keep repeating the same lies. 

13 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Voter ID Laws need to enacted throughout the 50 States.

One needs an ID for everything else in life - why do the Democrats call having an ID "Voter Suppression"?

Here's the thing. Trump tried to spin that lie that millions of people voted illegally. He formed a voter fraud commission... Which found next to no evidence of any voter fraud before shutting down. It's not just Voter ID. It's things like requiring an address and not a P.O. Box, of groups who typically do not have one such as Native Americans. It's closing of polling booths in areas likely to vote democrat, or moving the polling booth to far out of town. Overcrowding of voting offices. It's sending out the wrong dates or locations to voters. Gerrymandering. It's situations where politicians are throwing out a disproportionate number of votes from people who are likely to vote in a way they don't wish. That needs to stop.

It should be noted while that $32 trillion number may be correct, the number is actually $2 trillion less than the current health care is projected to cost us... and everyone would be covered.

9 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Not silly, just simple maths.

In a country where the population is roughly divided 50/50 between two political parties, one big state favoring overwhelmingly one of these parties is enough to tilt the balance...

Again this is silly. You are talking about 1/8th of the country living in California. You want to throw out votes from 1/8th of the country to get the result you are hoping for. Only 23 states have a population of more than 5 million people, 7 states have less than 1 million total people. California has 40 million people.