U.S. Politics - Page 684 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6831  
Old 02-01-13, 17:14
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,106
Default

Finally.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...rticle8077946/

Quote:
his past little while has seen some statements from unlikely sources about the critical economic importance of dealing quickly with climate change.

President Barack Obama led off the batting with his inaugural address, calling on Americans to take the lead in developing the technologies necessary for the emerging low-carbon economy. He pointed to the drought and Hurricane Sandy as the most recent evidence that our climate is changing for the worse.

But the most startling statements came from the heads of those bastions of economic orthodoxy: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF and a former finance minister in the conservative government of Nicolas Sarkozy, pointed to critical pivot points for the economic future.

Her final pivot: “Increasing vulnerability from resource scarcity and climate change, with the potential for major social and economic disruption: This is the real wild card in the pack.” She went on to call climate change “the greatest economic challenge of the 21st century.” This from the head of the IMF.

Ms. Lagarde concluded with a call for a new kind of economic growth. “So we need growth, but we also need green growth that respects environmental sustainability. Good ecology is good economics. This is one reason why getting carbon pricing right and removing fossil fuel subsidies are so important.”

Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, went so far as to insist that climate change be at the top of the Davos agenda, along with finance and growth, “because global warming imperils all of the development gains we have made.”

He went on to say that “the world’s top priority must be to get finance flowing and get prices right on all aspects of energy costs to support low-carbon growth.” Achieving a predictable price on carbon that accurately reflects real environmental costs is key to delivering emission reductions at scale. Correct energy pricing can also provide incentives for investments in energy efficiency and cleaner energy technologies.

A second immediate step is to end harmful fuel subsidies globally, which could lead to a 5-per-cent reduction in emissions by 2020.

These statements are not from the head of Greenpeace or from David Suzuki. They come from the heads of the bulwarks of the international financial system.
Not that anything meaningful will actually happen, of course, but good to know that it's finally sinking in.
Reply With Quote
  #6832  
Old 02-01-13, 17:24
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
BTW, you see this? IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family.

Yikes.



Doesn't sound bronze to me.... sound more like pure (comedy) gold.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-...e-20000-family

Thank God for Obamacare.
Quote:
"Can you respond to this?" asks a reader via Twitter. "Conservative friends are posting it all over." It turns out that "this" is a headline from CNS:

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

Apparently conservatives are outraged by this, but I have one question for them: just how much do you think healthcare coverage costs? Do you have any clue at all?

It turns out that the IRS published some final regs related to Obamacare recently, and in an effort to be helpful they provided some worked-out examples that include some assumptions about how much health coverage is likely to cost for various kinds of families. In one example, they assume that a worker can buy coverage for himself for $5,000 and coverage for his entire family of four for $20,000. They then work out the tax implications of all this.

So is this unusual? Not really. The average cost of healthcare coverage for a family is currently about $16,000, and by 2015 (the base year for the IRS examples) that will probably be around $18,000 or so. And that's for employer-sponsored plans. Individual plans are generally steeper, so $20,000 isn't a bad guess. It might be a little high, but not by much. And the family in question will, of course, be eligible for generous subsidies that bring this cost down substantially, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. They won't actually pay $20,000 per year.

So is this outrageous? An example of Obamacare run amok? Hardly. It's just an example of how damn much healthcare coverage costs in America and why we needed Obamacare in the first place. Apparently a lot of conservatives are shocked when they find this out.
Yep, thank god for Obamacare.

Considering that the ACA won't go into full effect until 2014 and the impacts - good or bad - won't be known for at least a decade or two, how 'bout you guys wait a bit instead of pulling an Inhofe and claiming that it's a disaster no matter what happens?

Last edited by VeloCity; 02-01-13 at 17:29.
Reply With Quote
  #6833  
Old 02-01-13, 17:27
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Finally.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comme...rticle8077946/

Not that anything meaningful will actually happen, of course, but good to know that it's finally sinking in.
Yeppers.

Won't be long before the only air travel allowed is by the Al Gore's of the world. The rest of us will be in our very nice mud huts bartering for food with our homemade trinkets.

Sounds nice.



http://www.cavementimes.com/social-m...-we-call-money
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 02-01-13 at 17:32.
Reply With Quote
  #6834  
Old 02-01-13, 17:31
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Yeppers.

Won't be long before the only air travel allowed is by the Al Gore's of the world. The rest of us will be in our very nice mud huts bartering for food with our homemade trinkets.

Sounds nice.
Nope, won't be long at all. Might be time to start addressing it, eh? Carbon taxes, cap and trade, programs to reduce GHG emissions...oh wait. Right. Forgot that you guys are against all of that, too.
Reply With Quote
  #6835  
Old 02-01-13, 18:00
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Nope, won't be long at all. Might be time to start addressing it, eh? Carbon taxes, cap and trade, programs to reduce GHG emissions...oh wait. Right. Forgot that you guys are against all of that, too.
Quote:
Carbon taxes, cap and trade, programs to reduce GHG emissions...

Why... hell yeah. Why not? Look what it's done for Al Gore.

That current TV sale to Al Jazerra was masterful. The best part wasn't that he put $100 million in oil money in his pocket. No, the best part was he got the deal done before the capital gains taxes increased on Jan 1st. Capitalism at it's very finest.

What we really need is cow control, internal combustion engine control and rice paddy control.

Control. It's what's for breakfast.

__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6836  
Old 02-01-13, 18:11
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,934
Default

So when Al Gore makes a pile of money it's a harbinger of the end of days, but if it's the Koch bros. it just shows how well capitalism works?
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #6837  
Old 02-01-13, 18:30
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
So when Al Gore makes a pile of money it's a harbinger of the end of days, but if it's the Koch bros. it just shows how well capitalism works?
Not at all. It's brilliant.

Gore, wins a Nobel Prize for whipping up the great unwashed. He makes a bloody fortune selling a "solution" to a problem that is in the tradition of the finest snake-oils salesman ever. He creates a loser of a cable tv channel, sells it to a subsidiary of an oil producing nation and doing it before a big rise in capital gains taxes pocketing piles of cash.

That does not count the private jet air travel or two huge mansions consuming carbon resources at an amazing rate compared to those he looks down on.

So, on balance, I'd say the Koch Bros got nuthin' on this guy.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6838  
Old 02-01-13, 18:31
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
What we really need is cow control, internal combustion engine control and rice paddy control.

Control. It's what's for breakfast.
Aren't you the one who keeps going on about the economy? Well, here's a bunch of global economic leaders explaining to you what is going to happen to the global economy. One might think you of all people would be interested in that, but I keep forgetting that it's not the economy or anything else that you're concerned about, it's ideology, and when reality runs counter to your ideology, reality must give way.

Reality, dude, is that we need to reduce global GHG emissions. Not that hard to understand, unless you really, really don't want to understand it.

Course, it's probably too late to have much of an effect anyway.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...te_change.html

When the Stern Report was released, we were on track for 2C. Now, just 6 years later, we're on track for 4C. I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what that actually means - Al Gore is fat! - but good luck with your economy when that happens.

Last edited by VeloCity; 02-01-13 at 18:41.
Reply With Quote
  #6839  
Old 02-01-13, 18:32
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,417
Default

Good thing the global warming debate is settled so we can get on with more control.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/29/no...rming-urgency/
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6840  
Old 02-01-13, 18:38
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Aren't you the one who keeps going on about the economy? Well, here's a bunch of global economic leaders explaining to you what is going to happen to the global economy. One might think you of all people would be interested in that, but I keep forgetting that it's not the economy or anything else that you're concerned about, it's ideology, and when reality runs counter to your ideology, reality must give way.

Reality, dude, is that we need to reduce global GHG emissions. Not that hard to understand, unless you really, really don't want to understand it.
Quote:
Well, here's a bunch of global economic leaders explaining to you what is going to happen to the global economy.
A bunch? A couple of bankers are now the who's who of the global warming debate? I thought you didn't like or trust bankers? I guess only when they agree with you are they to be listened to? Did I get that right?

I'm just curious how much money Ms. Lagarde stands to pocket from global cap and trade. What do you think velo? Coupla hundred million euros? More?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.