Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (553282)	3/5/2010 9:21:20 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574269

I've never really understood how Americans can be so anti-science when science is what has made this country great. One of the problems with denying that global warming is taking place and that runaway CO2 production by humans is helping to warm the planet is that the consequences are here and getting worse. One of the predictions from global warming scientists is that the warming was going to start melting frozen methane, which when released into the atmosphere is 30 times more potent than CO2 when it comes to heat trapping, which means global warming is about to accelerate even further than it has already. And yet, the GOP would have us ignore all of this, despite the already manifest consequences. It's another reason why the GOP loses credibility with intelligent, educated people. Embracing ideas like Creationism over evolution and denying global warming just seems stupid and ignores the latest science. It's nothing short of the dumbing down of America. Study Finds East Siberian Arctic Shelf Showing Instability and Widespread Venting of the GHG Methane; Releases May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated greencarcongress.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (553282)	3/5/2010 11:14:24 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574269

One side abuses filibusters and then the other uses reconciliation to overcome it. I feel like our gov't is becoming a place of game playing instead of a place where Americans come together for the good of the country. Political games have always been played. Perhaps its harder to pass things now, partially because congress is more open (secret back room deals got attacked as corrupt, but they got legislation passed) and partially because congress has more of a partisan divide than it did post WWII. Not more than it did at many other times, that WWII to maybe the 60s period, was one of the less divided times in our political history (There where divisive issues, but they didn't always split across party lines, and the visions of what was right for the country where probably close outside of these divisive issues). Of course that doesn't mean more good is getting done, perhaps both sides are sharing the same poor ideas. Which gets us to the "coming together for the good of the country" idea. Passing more things, or passing them quicker, isn't necessarily very good for the country. Arguably making new legislation harder would be better. Not total permanent gridlock, some things do need to get passed, but adding a new entitlement in particular should be VERY hard, and ideally should only be done with a near consensus of opinion behind it.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (553282)	3/5/2010 11:29:59 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574269

but I still think that any legislation that creates a structural imbalance can be considered major legislation The structural imbalance was created by the legislation that created the entitlements, and than added to by the legislation that authorized all sorts of other spending. Tax revenue, as a percentage of GDP has been in the same general range for a long time. Spending has not been contained in a range, but has instead been trending up. Of course Bush contributed to that trending up, and so to the structural imbalances, but by his spending, not his tax cuts. I say this not only because spending has changed to a greater percent than taxes have, and because revenue is within the historical range while spending is not, but also because tax rates are much easier to change and change much more often than major spending programs (esp. but not just entitlements). If your taxes are way too low, its quite possible to raise them. Every recent president (including Reagan and Bush II, and Obama already) have signed in to law bills that raise at least some taxes. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton raised income tax rates (although Regan's net action was to lower them, since the earlier cuts where large than the later increases). Since LBJ only Bush has started a new entitlement, and since FDR no president has canceled a major entitlement. And even non-entitlement spending programs tend to be far more durable than any particular tax rate.