Man Based Global Warming....

Yes, all of us have noticed that you denialists believe that will work.

 

Those are unfortunately INHERITED DEFICITS. You realize that the '09 deficit is considered Bush era (same for previous presidencies...and is also by far the largest.) This is the conservative legacy and was the predicted result back in 2000. You clowns run the country into the ditch, then complain about the cost of repairing the damage while blaming it on the folks who told you NOT to run into the ditch.

According to the CBO the sources of the projected shortfalls are:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).

90% of that is the result of the Bush era. It's not the "Obama Recession."

Guess what, any fool can run things for cash and look great for a time...it's running things for the long haul that you conservatives are incapable of.

 

The facts paint a completely different picture. Obama didn't make the mess, fools like you did. Don't blame the mess on the clean up crew.

Another lie by you, what's new? Paying for this would not be a problem if you conservatards hadn't squandered the money on fake stimulus to enrich your buddies. We had a balanced budget before you.

Independents, moderates, and liberals actually do realize someone will have to pay for this. As best we can all tell conservatives never have intended to pay for any of it. They couldn't constrain spending, failed to maintain the military or our infrastructure, and passed the bill on to later generations. Taxes will have to go up to cover it. They never should have been reduced in the first place since the taxes reduced were sections of the budget that were in deficit! (Soc. Sec. and medicare were not, so the GOP decided to bleed them white for the future.)

Enjoy the next 40 years in the wilderness.

 

double post

 

Don't worry my fiscally conservative friends. A great man once said, "Deficits don't matter."

Or do they?

Wonk Room Six Years After Cheney Said ‘Deficits Don’t Matter,’ The National Debt Hits A 50-Year High

 

I am sure if planes had not hit buildings and killed 3000+ people, the picture would be totally different.

 

You are extremely ignorant about what is actually going on, but you profess your ignorance with extreme arrogance, as if enough arrogance will cover up no facts or knowledge.

Go back and read the projected budget deficits under the current proposed spending, and even someone as this headed as yourself should be able to understand that we cannot sustain this mess. Money does not grow on trees, and the fact that the government is printing it does with no backup is not helping. The economy is in a tailspin, and both political flavors contributed to this mess. Barney Frank had a lot of input into the Fannie/Freddie mess.

In case you have forgotten, it was a Republican Congress with a moderate Democratic President that got the budget under control. That is where the majority of of Americans are at (center moderates, not extremists).


Here is an example of what happens when people like you try to run everyone's life:

In AIG They Don't Trust - WSJ.com

In short, get your head out of whatever cave you have it stuck in, wake up, and pay attention. You just may learn something.

 

Actually money, at least the US dollar, grows on a cotton plant!

Dont forget, Chris Dodd also had a heavy hand in the FF mess. What gets me is here are these fools wanting an explanation for the mess, that they created!

The deficit that Reagan created was due to building up the Military, something that needed to be done after the previous administration turned it into a quagmire. The byproduct, a direct result of the military spending was additional job markets were created, putting people to work. Since more people could work, that means more tax money came in, and slowly the deficit came down.

The Deficit created recently has two factors in it, in case people forgot, we are still at war with the terrorists who slammed planes into the Pentagon and the World trade centers killing 3000+ people. The second factor is the uncontrolled spending by Congress in these so called bailouts and stimulus bills, which so far have not created any jobs, and put the deficit trillions further into the hole.

The first bailout bill, do you know why Bush signed it? Hehe, wont be my problem soon! Let the next guy deal with it. Should we have gone into Iraq, probably not, but lets not get into that here, whats done is done. The fact here is the federal deficit is trillions in debt, the highest it has ever been, and so far nothing that the current president or congress has done has shown any glimmer of reducing it. They will print more money, increasing inflation, making the dollar smaller and smaller, which in turn raises the cost of everything, so even though one can be making $50K a year, after expenses, it will be no different than someone who made $25K 4-5 years ago. Add in increased taxes on everything if the crap and change bill passes, and that amount will be further reduced. That my friends is what we all have to look forward to.

BTW, the health care bill they want to pass. How about giving EVERYONE the same health care that all the politicians get? I would go for that!

 

I thought this was an interesting panel discussion:

An exerpt:

from The State of the Climate?and of Climate Science | Global Warming | DISCOVER Magazine

 

"in case people forgot, we are still at war with the terrorists who slammed planes into the Pentagon and the World trade centers killing 3000+ people"

In case you forgot,, NONE of the 19 hijackers came from IRAQ! No WMD were found in IRAQ. 6 years and countless lives later,,and we have had out eye OFF the ball wasting $billions! Oh,, and did I mention that the price of the oil that we went to "protect" has more than double during that 6 years? Who has won in all of this? Hint,,, think Saudia Arabia, the home of most of the 911 hijackers! (As conservative writer P.J. O'rourke suggests "If this is about oil,, it would be far cheaper just to buy it!"

No,, as Shawn has wisely pointed out,, don't blame the clean up crew for the mess! The best we can hope for is that over time we can return to some sanity!

Icarus

 

I see you failed to read my entire post where I said lets not talk about Iraq, we shouldn't have been there, or did you blindly miss it?

Here is the quote, word for word, just in case you missed it.

You wont get an argument about a Iraq from me, Afghanistan, now that is where hard core evidence of terrorists camps are, and that is where we should be, and nailing them hard core. There is no doubt in my mind that's where the war should have been all along and not wasted in Iraq. If we can get Pakistan's full cooperation to remove alqida from Pakistan, that would be great, but don't hold your breath. At this point it is far too late to pack up and leave any part of that area without first finishing the job, we don't need another Korea, and we are all seeing where that is going these days with missile tests, and cyber hacking. I hope Obama has enough balls to stand up to NK, and not bow down like Clinton did.

 

The warmist hoaxers are at it again:

Rahmstorf Rejects IPCC Procedure

by Steve McIntyre on July 8th, 2009

Over the past few days, we've discussed many peculiar aspects of Rahmstorf smoothing and centering: incorrect disclosure; seeming unawareness of what the smoothing did; unattractive properties of the triangular filter; the enhancement of "successful" prediction; opportunistic policy changes.
It's not though IPCC hadn't turned its mind to smoothing. IPCC AR4 enunciated a sensible policy on smoothing in AR4 chapter 3 : "Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change" Appendix A. In that chapter, they condemned Rahmstorf procedures and, unlike Rahmstorf, described their filter in unambigous terms - no cat-and-mouse. They stated:

In order to highlight decadal and longer time-scale variations and trends, it is often desirable to apply some kind of low-pass filter to the monthly, seasonal or annual data. In the literature cited for the many indices used in this chapter, a wide variety of schemes was employed. In this chapter, the same filter was used wherever it was reasonable to do so. The desirable characteristics of such filters are 1) they should be easily understood and transparent; 2) they should avoid introducing spurious effects such as ripples and ringing (Duchon, 1979); 3) they should remove the high frequencies; and 4) they should involve as few weighting coefficients as possible, in order to minimise end effects. The classic low-pass filters widely used have been the binomial set of coefficients that remove 2Δt fluctuations, where Δt is the sampling interval. However, combinations of binomial filters are usually more efficient, and those have been chosen for use here, for their simplicity and ease of use
​

These are sensible policies. "Easily understood and transparent" clearly excludes Rahmstorf's Copenhagen description of a triangular filter of length 29 as - "smoothed over 15 years". Criterion 2 -excluding ripples and ringing - excludes Rahmstorf's triangular filter on other grounds. Criterion 4 - "as few weighting coefficients as possible" also precludes Rahmstorf's filter.
IPCC went so far as to provide a standard filter to "remove fluctuations on less than decadal time scales" for chapter 3, described in unequivocal terms as follows:

The second filter used in conjunction with annual values (Δt =1) or for comparisons of multiple curves (e.g., Figure 3.8) is designed to remove fluctuations on less than decadal time scales. It has 13 weights 1/576 [1-6-19-42-71-96-106-96-71-42-19-6-1]. Its response function is 0.0 at 2, 3 and Δt, 0.06 at 6Δt, 0.24 at 8Δt, 0.41 at 10Δt, 0.54 at 12Δt, 0.71 at 16Δt, 0.81 at 20Δt, and 1 for zero frequency, so for yearly data the half-amplitude point is about a 12-year period, and the half-power point is 16 years. This filter has a very similar response function to the 21-term binomial filter used in the TAR.
​

Instead of simply complying with standard IPCC procedures, Rahmstorf used a filter procedure described only in the AGU newspaper - the triangular filter properties of which were not described in the original article and indeed the authors say that they unaware of this defect at the time.
As so often in climate science, Rahmstorf changed smoothing policy not just once, but twice. First, in Rahmstorf 2007, he abandoned IPCC policy in favor of an article in the AGU newspaper; then he changed accounting parameters in the Copenhagen Report - all without explicitly stating that he had changed policy from the IPCC report and accompanying the change notice with an explicit accounting of the impact of the change.
Here's what happens with Rahmstorf's results if IPCC filter procedures had been followed. Rahmstorf can no longer assert that observations are in the "upper" part of models, with the implication that things are "worse than we thought". R07 is looking shakier and shakier.

| Category: General | Comments (33)

 

That describes you perfectly. It's yet more Freudian projection by conservatives.

90% of that is Dubya/conservative's making as the CBO report illustrated. Unfortunately it will be tough to undo that. The multiplier for the fixes is several times greater.

We can't sustain deficits like this indefinitely. If we tried to balance the budget now by cutting spending we would cause a massive Depression, without a doubt. Smart folks (those who aren't kneejerk conservatives like you) understand that govts. need to borrow and spend in tough times to prevent an economic death spiral AND they need to contain spending and pay their debts in the good times. Conservatives propose doing the opposite (the Great Depression, and particularly the 1937 recession illustrate why that won't work.)

Taxes will have to be restored to levels higher than what they were before your favorite conservatives reduced them in a fit of accounting illogic and fantasy. That's the way compounding works. There are several hundred billion a year in carryover costs as a result of the Dubya deficts: on the course we were on before 2000, even following the 2001 recession we would be about $8 trillion ahead. Even at a 3% rate that will add to the deficit ~$240 billion/yr. Then there are the mismanaged wars that will end up costing several times more than they should have...we've only borrowed the early installments so far. I call this at about $150 billion/year legacy cost. But the biggest problem is that Americans mistakenly think their Federal taxes are high when they are actually low. That Dubya legacy is costing us several hundred billion more a year.

Unlike you apparently, I have gone through the historical budget figures and revenue sources many times. That's why I opposed Dubya' tax cuts and recognize the true source of the mess. Dubya was using deficts and the diminishing Soc. Security surpluses to create an unsustainable illusion. But like other bubbles, the illusion only works so long. Remember, to make Dubya's "projections" work he assumed that many of the cuts would be repealed during his term (none were that I can recall, and no conservative has ever called for repealing them, it was all a massive accounting fraud by the CEO and his VP...both of whom already had experience conducting such fraud in private industry.)

The supply siding orgy was supposed to result in phenomenal growth, but instead Dubya's 8 years have been the lowest growth since WWII. And now that he's positioned the economy unrealistically and uncompetitively, the rest of us have to figure out how to jump start it AND clean up the accumulated damage.

It's nice to see Right Wingnuts finally acknowledge Clinton as a moderate. After all these years of acting as if he was Lenin, they now acknowledge that he was moderate. When it came to business he was actually rather conservative...and there were some problems like that such as the banking deregulation that he didn't veto. I've commented about this irony for at least a decade: business conservatives lobbied heavily against him even though his policies were business friendly. Business conservatives finally installed their man, and his/their favored policies promptly wrecked the economy and brought their businesses to ruin. At least they got what they deserved, unlike the rest of us.

Unfortunately extremist conservatives like you ran things for much of the past 8 years. You couldn't wait to throw out the moderates labeling them liberals, socialists, terrorist-lovers, whatever. Extremist conservatives of your ilk presided over the extremely low economic growth, mismanaged 2 wars and everything else they touched. (Where's Osama?)

Another opinion piece from the WSJ that has gotten things so terribly wrong for the past 8 years. You don't learn do you?

Run peoples lives? The derivatives that got them in trouble are the very sort of things folks like me believe never should have been allowed in the first place. These were the "financial innovations" that folks like you thought were so brilliant.

The great unregulated free market you love has produced bonus systems that actually destroy companies and wreck our economy due to perverse incentives. Execs walk off with the money, and the incestuous boards approve it--the norm has been illegally backdating options to make it possible. Investors end up with nothing (despite providing the capital we have no real say in the bonus packages or corporate governance.) And the taxpayers end up paying the bill from their social security withholdings because conservatives like you and Greenspan continue to understimate the cost of ineffective regulation/enforcement.

The answers to all this are the same as I've said for decades: figure out what sort of services you expect from govt. and how you are going to pay for it, not borrow for it, but pay for it. Quit cooking the books as conservatives love to do in both govt. and the corporate world.

Effective Federal tax rates have been far too low to pay for the military (including healthcare and benefits), as well as the other Federal depts outside of Soc. Sec./Medicare that are funded separately. Your conservative solution, cut Federal taxes (twice already) to make the problem more acute as the Soc. Security surplus you are borrowing from shrinks to nothing. That and your folks have intentionally not maintained infrastructure, regulated business, or actually planned for a competitive economy in the coming 5/10/20 years. They also did what they could to make sure health care costs here are the highest in the word inflating at about twice the pace of GDP, and for at best mediocre results and reducing our business competetiveness. The result is a moribund economy that has fallen short of any modern predecessor in growth, with an even bleaker future minus large investment. The supply siding free lunch projected by looking at the wrong end of the Laffer curve was a conservative illusion, just as skeptics like myself said in 2000. Conservative smoke and mirrors, off balance sheet budgeting never worked and never will. This deep recession is your baby; and if you have your way it will grow up to be a deep depression.

 

One more note on medical care costs.

A public audit of "not for profit" hospitals in the Seattle are was quite revealing. Most hospital CEO and top administrative salaries are public because of their "not for profit" status. The audit revealed that the compensation packages for top execs ranged from a low of $500k to a staggering $10 million! Averaging ~$2 million! The argument that was used in defense of these numbers was "In the private sector,, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry compensation is in the 8 figure range,, so we're not that bad (sic)"!

KUOW radio Seattle morning edition 7/9/09

And you right wingers think we are properly managing our health care?

Icarus

 

Ponderous B.S.

The recession, which Obamna has repeatedly called the worst since the great depression, is being worsened by the policies of the Obamathugs. The so-called 'stimulus' has succeeded in raising unemployment, and will deepenthe national debt geometrically. THIS IS HIS BABY and the baby of anyone who voted for the stimulus. Now, the geniuses are sarting to realize what a failure it is, so, naturally, the next step is to have YET ANOTHER STIMULUS PACKAGE!

Say "hello" to the OBAMA ERA depression, bankruptcy, inflation and economic ruin. You simply cannot blame this on any previous administration.

Compare the situation to your own household budget. If you are in real debt, is spending three or four times the amount you are in debt going to reduce it, or expand it? When do you begin to pay it off? Will reducing your income (via increased taxes) help?

Printing money (which we are now feverishly doing) ian't going to help. We all know how that turns out.

Obama has ZERO regard for our children and grandchildren. This debt is designed to reduce them to third-world dependence on corrupt government and politicians. Only idiots, ideologues or the uneducated could support this statist rape of the American people.

 

Warmist hoaxers stumble over the denial of the Medieval Warm Period yet again:

Of course, there’s many researchers, such as Michael Mann and his thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” that try mightily to make the MWP disappear.

News flash to IPCC. Now a scientist has linked the MWP to success of the Inca civilization in the southern hemisphere. It is not going away any time soon, it is spreading.
The new study is called “Putting the Rise of the Inca within a Climatic and Land Management Context” and was prepared by Alex Chepstow-Lusty, an English paleo-biologist working for the French Institute of Andean Studies, in Lima. Link to paper (PDF) is here (h/t to WUWT reader Corey)
Here is the abstract:

The rapid expansion of the Inca from the Cuzco area of highland Peru produced the largest empire in the New World between ca. AD 1400–1532. Although this meteoric rise may in part be due to the adoption of innovative societal strategies, supported by a large labour force and standing army, we argue that this would not have been possible without increased crop productivity, which was linked to more favourable climatic conditions. A multi-proxy, high-resolution 1200-year lake sediment record was analysed at Marcacocha, 12 km north of Ollantaytambo, in the heartland of the Inca Empire. This record reveals a period of sustained aridity that began from AD 880, followed by increased warming from AD 1100 that lasted beyond the arrival of the Spanish in AD 1532. These increasingly warmer conditions allowed the Inca and their predecessors the opportunity to exploit higher altitudes from AD 1150, by constructing agricultural terraces that employed glacial-fed irrigation, in combination with deliberate agroforestry techniques. There may be some important lessons to be learnt today from these strategies for sustainable rural development in the Andes in the light of future climate uncertainty.
​

 

In addition to the so-called stimulus package, we're now asked to swallow the 'cap and trade' B.S. to 'save the planet.' Are you ready for another big tax, or don't you care because you won't be among 'the rich'? Obama LIED. You are the rich, ha,ha.


...Cap and trade is nothing more than a massive energy tax, which is why its chief alternative is a carbon tax, and it has been sold under the following false pretenses:

• It will not cost anything;
• It will increase jobs;
• It will increase green investment; and
• It will save the environment.

A Lot More Than a Stamp a Day

A commonly quoted cost estimate of Waxman-Markey comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claims that cap and trade will cost the equivalent of a postage stamp per day--$175 per household in 2020.[1]

But CBO admittedly ignores economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill[2] and the fact that consumers and business will change their behavior as a result of higher energy prices. This is a serious oversight that has significant economic consequences.

In The Heritage Foundation's economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP loss in 2020 was $161 billion (in 2009 dollars).[3] For a family of four, that translates into $1,870--more than 10 times the size of the $175 CBO claim.Furthermore, the Heritage analysis found that for all years, the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or more than double the 2020 loss. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage), the inflation-adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four..."

Cap and Trade Sold under False Pretenses

The right-wingers are on top of the facts once again. How come the left-wing loonies and warmist hoaxers can't stand the truth?

 

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I also have some experience with a non-profit hospital that had outrageous billing rates well above norm, and was obviously doing quite well. It owned property all around and leased it to for profit businesses, but paid no property tax on any of it. Such organizations work like a giant parasite sucking the community dry.

 

You know one doesn't have to do a complete cut and paste of a previous post to make your point. If you wish people to read what you have written a simple clip and or a reference to a previous post keeps things a bit cleaner,,,, just my opinion.

On the subject of the recession,, clearly this is a Bush era recession! We were 'officially' in a recession long before the election,, although the Bush administration didn't want to admit it. (Nor John McCain for that matter!) Using unemployment numbers to gauge the where and when of a recession is not a good practice as employment (and unemployment) tend to follow economic growth (or contraction) by as much as 18 months. To say the stimulus "hasn't worked" 6 months out because unemployment continues high misses the point.

The real issue is that most mainstream economists feel that running deficits during times of recession is required to end such recessions. The corollary is that during times of growth,, taxes are paid to pay off that debt. Th reality is that during the "good years" of the Bush administration, we were in huge deficit all during those years,, largely due to the misguided tax cuts of the era. (Not to mention the waste and corruption in the prosecution of the Iraq fiasco!)

NOTE to ACDII,

You chastise me for mentioning Iraq in post at 8:44 and yet I don't think you can reconcile the two following quotes:

"Should we have gone into Iraq, probably not, but lets not get into that here, whats done is done."

"The Deficit created recently has two factors in it, in case people forgot, we are still at war with the terrorists who slammed planes into the Pentagon and the World trade centers killing 3000+ people. The second factor is the uncontrolled spending by Congress in these so called bailouts and stimulus bills, which so far have not created any jobs, and put the deficit trillions further into the hole."

You can't talk about forgetting 9/11,, the war that we are in,, and then talk about deficits,,, and in the same breath say "lets not get into that,, what's done is done"!

While I agree with you can't undo history,, you can learn from it,,, and like it or not,, the bad decisions of those days are being paid for today,, so trying to ignore them is like saying " My kid totaled the car last week,,,but I don't want to talk about that,, I want to talk about how dirty it looks since it has been in insurance companies impound lot!" (Not a very good analogy I admit,,, but,,,)

Icarus

 

I would have much preferred a revenue neutral, increasing carbon tax rather than cap and trade. But it worked pretty well for acid rain I hear.