Right wing conservatives tend to be more pragmatic and realistic about what they're going for. The liberal left tends to want things that, someone else they think is better off than them, should pay for.

Right wing conservatives tend to view themselves as pragmatic while getting lost in the weeds and can't stop pointing out the few people getting help from the system.

 

Right wing conservatives tend to view themselves as pragmatic while getting lost in the weeds and can't stop pointing out the few people getting help from the system.

And the right wing corporate well fare is far bigger in scope than the help people in need get. Stuff that has been in the laws for so long that the public has long forgotten about it. The right talks about 'deregulation' but never says a word about taking the corporate welfare off the books. But all of those poor people that stay that way so they can live high on the hog and sit around are just lazy.

 

And the right wing corporate well fare is far bigger in scope than the help people in need get. Stuff that has been in the laws for so long that the public has long forgotten about it. The right talks about 'deregulation' but never says a word about taking the corporate welfare off the books. But all of those poor people that stay that way so they can live high on the hog and sit around are just lazy.

Forestry on public land, grazing on public land, oil drilling on public land,
... less obvious, overweight trailers on public roads - they literally crush miles of highway just to cut transportation costs in half for certain industries (and the tax-payer gets to drive on the broken roads left behind and covering the cat of their own bent rims and tires from mis-alignments) until politicians finally decide tax payers should pay for a new road.

 

Forestry on public land, grazing on public land, oil drilling on public land,
... less obvious, overweight trailers on public roads - they literally crush miles of highway just to cut transportation costs in half for certain industries (and the tax-payer gets to drive on the broken roads left behind and covering the cat of their own bent rims and tires from mis-alignments) until politicians finally decide tax payers should pay for a new road.

How do you define overweight for public roads when the DOT supplies permits for trucks and heavy hauling to well over 200,000 pounds.

Is the farmer hauling 85,000#'s on his 80,000 # permitted truck actually overweight while the 180,000# permitted truck hauling 165,000 #'s of heavy oil field machinery not?

Where I last worked inte oil field we had a fleet of frack pump rigs that were licensed for 100,000#'s that ran on the same number of axles as all of our 80,000# rigs. So were the 100,000 # rigs overweight or not?

 

How do you define overweight for public roads when the DOT supplies permits for trucks and heavy hauling to well over 200,000 pounds.

Is the farmer hauling 85,000#'s on his 80,000 # permitted truck actually overweight while the 180,000# permitted truck hauling 165,000 #'s of heavy oil field machinery not?

Where I last worked inte oil field we had a fleet of frack pump rigs that were licensed for 100,000#'s that ran on the same number of axles as all of our 80,000# rigs. So were the 100,000 # rigs overweight or not?

I define a subsidy as any permit the government is willing to give out that allows a truck to use a road, bridge, parking lot that is not designed for that weight. This subsidizes the true cost that would have been incurred if the load was divided into parcels that allows all roads to be used within their design (weight) specification - all in the name of cutting the cost of freight or the number of drivers needed to move things.

How would you describe these special permits? Why damage 200 miles of road just because one industry (even one company in some cases) asks for their transportation costs to be reduced with special permits.

 

How would you describe these special permits? Why damage 200 miles of road just because one industry (even one company in some cases) asks for their transportation costs to be reduced with special permits.

Ask the DOT why. I don't make their rules.

If they will sell me a permit that lets me drive a 2,300,000+# vehicle on a public road legally I will drive said vehicle anywhere they allow me to regardless of what damage to the roads or inconvenience to people like you it makes. Their rules not mine. That's why.

 

Ask the DOT why. I don't make their rules.

If they will sell me a permit that lets me drive a 2,300,000+# vehicle on a public road legally I will drive said vehicle anywhere they allow me to regardless of what damage to the roads or inconvenience to people like you it makes. Their rules not mine. That's why.

I'm just pointing out there is...
Active Corporate Welfare (e.g. cash for each gallon of biodiesel produced & cash for corn harvested to Cargill and ADM),
Passive Corporate Welfare (e..g overweight road permits, tariff exemptions, pollution emission exemptions, ...)

Billions of dollars where
- cash collected from taxpayers is given corporations or
- government decides not to collect payment (tariffs) from certain corporations, or,
- assets and infrastructure is allowed to be pilfered (public lands drilled for oil, lumber harvested) for pennies on the dollar, or,
- assets abused (overweight truck example)

And our republican friends only talk about how important it is to subsidize these industries and let the money "trickle down". Well, the laws are not helping the family farmers anymore, ADM and Cargill have undermined the program, foreign-owned Corporations in the US are undermining the tariff exemption program, and those privately-held or foreign owned organizations or are not exactly sharing the wealth and letting money trickle down.

Final message: stop complaining about welfare programs (entitlements) until the corporate welfare is addressed.

 

I'm just pointing out there is...
Active Corporate Welfare (e.g. cash for each gallon of biodiesel produced & cash for corn harvested to Cargill and ADM),
Passive Corporate Welfare (e..g overweight road permits, tariff exemptions, pollution emission exemptions, ...)

Billions of dollars where
- cash collected from taxpayers is given corporations or
- government decides not to collect payment (tariffs) from certain corporations, or,
- assets and infrastructure is allowed to be pilfered (public lands drilled for oil, lumber harvested) for pennies on the dollar, or,
- assets abused (overweight truck example)

And our republican friends only talk about how important it is to subsidize these industries and let the money "trickle down". Well, the laws are not helping the family farmers anymore, ADM and Cargill have undermined the program, foreign-owned Corporations in the US are undermining the tariff exemption program, and those privately-held or foreign owned organizations or are not exactly sharing the wealth and letting money trickle down.

Final message: stop complaining about welfare programs (entitlements) until the corporate welfare is addressed.

There you go again. Dragging him back out of the weeds and ruining a good rant.

 

Physicists create "Flubber"...

 

I define a subsidy as any permit the government is willing to give out that allows a truck to use a road, bridge, parking lot that is not designed for that weight. This subsidizes the true cost that would have been incurred if the load was divided into parcels that allows all roads to be used within their design (weight) specification - all in the name of cutting the cost of freight or the number of drivers needed to move things.

How would you describe these special permits? Why damage 200 miles of road just because one industry (even one company in some cases) asks for their transportation costs to be reduced with special permits.

More of his reading comprehension problems. When someone only sees what he wants in a post, wouldn't that be a comprehension problem?

 

Final message: stop complaining about welfare programs (entitlements) until the corporate welfare is addressed.

You're beginning to sound like a conservative. I was with you until the last line. I get your point, but it's also like saying we shouldn't talk about the forest until we cut down this one tree. Entitlements are north of $2T compared to estimates of corporate welfare at about $100B.

The government should not be in the business of doling out goodies to favored friends in exchange for votes or campaign donations. Reining in the scope and role of the central government would see the entire forest pruned back.

 

Idiot.

 

You're beginning to sound like a conservative. I was with you until the last line. I get your point, but it's also like saying we shouldn't talk about the forest until we cut down this one tree. Entitlements are north of $2T compared to estimates of corporate welfare at about $100B.

The government should not be in the business of doling out goodies to favored friends in exchange for votes or campaign donations. Reining in the scope and role of the central government would see the entire forest pruned back.

Cash payments as corporate welfare may be in the range of $100M but that doesn't include the Tax Credits, the permits to destroy our infrastructure, the pennys-on-the dollar rent they pay to harvest lumber from federal lands (instead of paying market price) and extract oil from government land, get Eminent domain rulings for pipelines, all happen everyday but don't get added to the right wing's definition of Corporate Welfare. If you want to stick to your 100B number, be my guest. I'd like a real number calculated - I'm not even going to guess what the number might be.

 

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.co...conflict-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/

 

Cash payments as corporate welfare may be in the range of $100M but that doesn't include the Tax Credits, the permits to destroy our infrastructure, the pennys-on-the dollar rent they pay to harvest lumber from federal lands (instead of paying market price) and extract oil from government land, get Eminent domain rulings for pipelines, all happen everyday but don't get added to the right wing's definition of Corporate Welfare. If you want to stick to your 100B number, be my guest. I'd like a real number calculated - I'm not even going to guess what the number might be.

There you go again, putting facts in play. Hey, poor people not only get welfare but they get 'earned income credit', so that makes them the same as corporations, right?

 

If you want to stick to your 100B number, be my guest. I'd like a real number calculated - I'm not even going to guess what the number might be.

It's not my number, it was an estimate by a bunch of smart people. An independent analysis by another author came in at nearly double that amount - which still doesn't change my conclusion.

And I'll add that giving goodies back to the people that are paying for those goodies is not the same as giving them to someone else in exchange for their votes. Yes, it's an insidious cycle that exaggerates the power of government and enriches politicians by robbing one pocket to put money in another, less a fee of course.

 

Please, tax payers, don't make us get real jobs!

 

AGW is having some serious credibility issues at this point. Seems real science can't be held down for ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RkxS2tbBI0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vQkO0M2uYM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOGt3OzTXBs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIvLEwGS-70

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFK-UTGH1Zw

Damnit! Overall things keep getting better not worse!

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...irst-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

How wrong can an entire movement be and still think they're right?

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...irst-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/



How wrong can an entire movement be and still think they're right?

Very. Even more so if they feel they have something to lose even when they don't.

For much of the believers sect it's not about the environment and never was. It's about having some larger than life undefinable scapegoat entity they can blame every self inflicted shortcoming and unfortunate event in their and everyone else's lives on that absolutely no one can do anything about.

If it exists or you perceive it to exist and you don't want to take responsibility for it, even if you caused it, just blame it on AGW/Climate Change and you are automatically absolved of all responsibility for any self inflicted screw ups.

It's the modern day devil. No matter whats wrong, or you percieve to be wrong, you can blame him/it even if they are 100% your own making.