Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK Nick you're right. It's getting worse regardless. Changes in fucking Asia effect us. And our policy effects the environment there. We have to realize we are all connected. And thus, the environment has been getting worse under Bush. The fucking ROADLESS rule for one you dunce.
You can call me a dunce. I'll call you a shithead. Are we square now?
Quote:
Last time I checked, our population was increasing the last four years, cities were sprawling, trees were being cut down, carrying capacities exceeded. Bush has done nothing good environmentally.
You complain about the population. Is Kerry going to do anything about immigration? Is going to outlaw having sex now? Cities are sprawling because the population is increasing, mostly due to legal and illegal immigration. Kerry is no different than Bush in that regard. Are we somehow going to stop printing books and newspapers, making furniture, or using wood under Kerry?
Now here's one for ya. Kery raises the CAFE standards for SUV's. This would probably have a net effect of driving consumers to... Japanese cars, just as it has done everytime we have had gas price shocks and raised the standard. Why does this happen? Because the Japanese make many more (and heck, I'll say it, better)sedans while the U.S. companies make many more SUV's and trucks. When we suddenly have GM for example unable to maintain UAW wages, pension and health benefit obligations because of lost sales due to redesigns, attempts to pound into the sedan market against very strong Japanese sales there while at the same time dealing with huge issues or possible just lost sales or inability to makes sales in the area where they were strong, how will this all go over?
How will Kerry keep up his rhetoric on not exporting jobs, or keeping good jobs, etc when U.S. companies are going belly up to the Japanese for no other reason than a change in laws under Kerry?
Quote:
My point is, under John Kerry or another Democrat, it would certainly degrade at a slower rate, if not improve in certain areas. They wouldn't do what Bush did to the "Clean Skies" and Clean Water act. He'd probably put a scientist in charge of the EPA and the EPA would probably manage fisheries, decrease harvesting rates below carrying capacities, other administrations would do what they could to reduce sprawl in the face of population growth, etc.
I don't recall us not having sprawl, not using trees, or even raising the CAFE standards under Clinton. Most of the actions we debate about Clinton attempting or issuing executive orders about (like arsenic for example) he was sued into action over. Why would I believe Kerry to be any better when I've not seen him addressing population control at all via immigration?
Quote:
What I would really like to see is a program like China has, to keep population control in check.
You would like to see an authoritarian regime enforce mandatory abortions against the will of the woman carrying them?
And you portray my views as extreme? China is beyond extreme with their population control measures.
Quote:
What I would really like to see is a program like China has, to keep population control in check.
Population control wouldn't be a problem in the U.S. if we enforced our immgration policies and also simply stopped immigration for a period of years. The native population of the United States has done it's part. They actually have a population rate that is below a sustaining level. It is raise to and above the level by immigration. We both know that countries like Japan and also most of Europe are expected to have their populations decrease in the following decades. But what good will it do if they have to let in the whole third world in some attempt to fund their retirement and pension obligations?
Quote:
Every problem I can think of. Why is it fair that a family with 10 kids would pay the same taxes and a couple without kids? In fact I bet the kids get them some sort of discount. Now you're a freaking Conservative so you must agree that's nuts. Less than two kids, you should get a tax break. More than two, you should have to pay more, on some sort of scale. Hehe the IRS would rack up some revenue from Utah.
I don't believe in any credits that allow you to be paid money you haven't paid into the system. Both the child tax credit and earned income tax credit allow you to take out "credit" that you never paid in. I've never seen a Democrat take a stand against the EITC and I doubt any of them would against the child tax credit either since it they are both forms of income redistribution. So again, I don't see how electing Kerry would change that.
Nick
