Random Politics & Religion #24

Way to miss the point.

But that's about what people expect from any of you. Props for the consistency.

Wait, are you saying that any of the countries listed above couldn't fund those very projects themselves?

Let me ask you a little more clearly then: When is enough, enough?

Obviously, any climate initiative policy that the federal government makes have an inverse relationship with the economy. So, when are you finally satisfied with the progress the US has already made? Is it when tens of millions of people are out of work because of the overbearing regulations placed by a non-elected group of bureaucrats? Or is it when entire counties are decimated due to touchy/feely oppression being dealt by the liberals?

Please clarify.

Or stop talking out of your ***.

Again, dramatic much?

Way to miss the point.

But that's about what people expect from any of you. Props for the consistency.

tl;dr Bitching about where your taxes go is stupid when everyone has something they don't want their money going towards.

Wait, you mean we should just let the government do whatever they want and not do anything to correct their arrogance?

Did the 2016 election not teach you a lesson on federal arrogance?

You know, the same argument any of you present when the topic of our over bloated military spending is brought up.

... Where? ...

So?

Do you honestly think that I, an overly fiscal conservative, am going to argue with you about overspending by the federal government, including the Defense budget?

Since when have I said we need to maintain/increase said budget? Hell, in the Trump thread, I even stated that we needed to get the Defense budget down ~5% or so from 2015 amounts.

Hell, I'm 100% for a fully balanced budget. No surplus, no debt increase, just the previous year's money going to this year's expenses.

A faulty assumption. What are these overbearing regulations that will cost tens of millions of jobs? Climate policy doesn't need to be incompatible with a healthy economy. Things like tech innovation are synonymous with economic prosperity and things like mitigation efforts offset a lot of the costs that we'll ultimately need to deal with.

There aren't concrete answers to what is "enough". It's an ongoing effort, which is why periodic reviews are built into the Paris agreement. Every once in a while, stop and *** the current effort and make adjustments. Using the same example from yesterday, when are increases in our defense budget enough? When have we reached peak safety? Neither are situations with hand-holding answers in the way you're thinking.

Well, I know you are going to deny the source, but....

Of which is driven by private enterprises, not federal oversight.

Ignoring that it's *** Heritage foundation, I'm not saying there not any negative impacts but it's really naive to think that a problem as big as climate change wouldn't have some consequences we don't like. There's many aspects to it though so there's definitely room for more attractive solutions.

Tech innovation, like a lot of research, comes from a mix of private and public funding. Public funding is meant to spur on private efforts because early investments aren't always appealing.

Yeah, how dare somebody has an ideal or viewpoint about the world that's outside your little bubble!

Look, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any public funding. I'm saying that federal regulations have a strong hand at hurting the economy. Not all regulations, but environmental regulations are notorious at aiming directly at the economy. You cannot deny that.

You are creating an argument that I'm not having. There's a logical fallacy there, better ask the expert on what it is.

Don't think any fiscal conservative supports bloated defense spending. The problem is Military budgets are programmed 3~5+ years in advance and politicians only consider things on a year by year basis. This means any dramatic cuts must come out of discretionary spending, which is the spending NOT programmed in advance and is for things that fluctuate yearly like troops pay, medical benefits, housing, training, equipment maintenance and so forth. The *real* budget busters are the long term procurement programs (think F35 / ships / ect..) and because the US government enters into a contract for them it's obligated to fund that contract. So if this very moment we started really cutting back on big budget defense spending, the effects won't be pronounced until 2020 ~ 2022. To be perfectly honest a President like Trump is probably the best person in office for reducing those costs, he has absolute zero incentive to maintain them and has no fear of political backlash from reducing them.

You know exactly what the Heritage foundation is and why it's suspect as a source of information.

Environmental regulations are meant to offset, mitigate or prevent greater harm. One of the more famous examples is the federal ban on leaded gasolines. Of course that had an economic impact associated with it, but the goal was prevent further contamination of the environment and offset future costs of lead-related problems that would swell way beyond the initial burden if left ignored.

I'll put you down for 3.50 then.

There is no point to FFXIAH. It's mostly to waste time while looking for the right porn scene.

Just a couple weeks late there, Josi.

Donny's just out of his element.

We can cut down on carbon emission without signing this accord. I think I said that earlier. Cities and states are free to set their own regulations.

As long as it doesn't override federal regulations

/buzzkillingtonnod.jpg