What's new
By:
Filters

US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord

DutchJazzer said:
lol people are still leaving their though for red states!
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. California's population is exploding. The reason why it's so expensive to live there is because real estate is in such high demand. Econ 101.

It ranks in the top 15 for per capita income (along with most blue states) and top 5 in median household income.

Furthermore, California's economy is strong. Right now it's in the top 10 in the world at $2.5 trillion GDP and 5 percent unemployment.

Compare that to the Netherlands, whose GDP is $865 billion and a higher unemployment rate, 6.2 percent.

But if want to know how red states are doing, google Kansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma. Their deficits have led to the shutting down of public schools, inability to build infrastructure, and an intellectual vacuum as those who can have already left. Trickle down is failing in those states!

Get enough education for one day Dutch?
 
Last edited:
Pulling out of the Paris Climate treaty was about more then America First. It was America Alone. It was impossible not to notice the bitterness and anger in his words and tone. In particular when he spoke the name "Paris". So soon after crowing about how great his trip abroad was. But, what does America have to be angry about, and why would we be angry at Europe? The Paris accord was voluntary, Europe was not taking advantage of us. We stood #2 in the world in terms of our CO2 emissions. We don't have any responsibility here? We brokered the very treaty we just withdrew from. (Ah, but it was Obama who brokered it, and Obama's legacy must be destroyed, regardless if the Paris accord was a moral obligation to the future).

Why is Trump so angry? In his speech, he spoke the word "Paris" in a contemptuous manner. I have no doubt he was himself thinking of President Macron at that point, as well as reminding those among his followers who to despise, reminding those who share his anger at global "elites", and non Americans telling Americans what to do. Yet, nobody was telling us what to do. Trump was, at once, appealing to his base, his cult following, who are angry and resentful at the world, and apparently blaming the world for all their problems, and venting his own anger at being laughed at by Europeans. "We won't let anybody laugh at Americans anymore" as he put it. But it was NATO leaders who laughed, not at America, but at him, for his comical and nonsensical NATO address, and he knows it. It was President Macron who stared down his handshake, and then said it was no accident. It was that man of elitist Paris who stood up to Trump, and he knows it. You can bet Trump was thinking of Macron when he spoke the word "Paris" in a tone of spite.

He cannot get his immigration ban approved. He can't get his Wall built. But he can pull out of the Paris accord and, by so doing, say "drop dead", to Paris, and to Europe, and to the whole world. Astonishing as it may seem, is it really? Is it really so surprising that he is doing this for spite? His way of saying screw you to the rest of the world? He is that petty, and we all know he is that petty. He was already, with Scott Pruiit's help, enacting changes that guarantee the United States would not meet its commitment to the treaty. Pulling out was for show, to allow him to spite the world he is so angry at. To tell the world who the boss of America is. That's his foreign policy. The world will be punished if it slights The Donald. That is at the heart of his world view. The world is trying to take advantage of America. America must be angry at the world, including our long held friends, because Donald is angry at the world. Never mind that America can lead the transformation to renewable energy sources and economies flourishing within that transformation. Cede the leadership role to China. Spite the world and diminish America, and do so in the name of America First. Diminish the United States and call it making America great again.

This is what happens when you put a 5 year old in charge of your nation's destiny. And History will judge the manchild accordingly. Too many Americans are sleepwalking through their own history, complicit in this child's tirade. Shame on them. It's inexcusable to be so asleep at the wheel that we allow this spoiled child to have such power and influence over the destiny of his nation, and the world. Time for as many people as possible to wake up and see this emperor has no clothes.

On the other hand, the speech can also be seen as part of our culture wars, a giant middle finger to liberals in general. And we can see that attitude on this forum, where here, as in other Trump threads, any action seen as harmful to liberal worldviews is always seen by one poster in particular with unrestrained glee.

https://www.salon.com/2017/06/03/cl...pullout-is-a-giant-middle-finger-to-the-left/

"As Paris makes clear, right-wing attitudes on climate change are largely driven by hatred of tree-hugging liberals"
 
How dare we develop alt energy and try and leave the planet a nice place for our children and grandchildren! I'm sure they're really gonna hate us for getting off our fossil fuel addiction and for recycling.
 
Jonah said:
Agreeing on a definition of terms is the most basic condition for a good faith argument or even just a civil conversation. Instead of simply asking for clarification, all too often past slights and petty grievances run everything off the rails with insults.

Anyway, my understanding is that a subsidy is direct aid or some kind of monetary allowance provided by the government whereas a tax credit is a reduction in taxable income. That’s an elemental difference. Maybe it’s too simple and I’m missing something because it is true that subsidy and tax credit or tax break are often used interchangeably as a matter of course by many publications and commentators.

Still, there are economists that make a real point of not conflating them. Here’s an article that elaborates on the difference:

https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies
Click to expand...


We could agrue semantics if you want. But the important fact to understand is that a subsidy or tax break works the same:

Unfortunately, even some advocates of free markets use the terms interchangeably. For example, economist David Friedman argues that a subsidy and a tax credit for a given activity “differ only in labeling.” Friedman continues, “They have the same effect on the federal budget. They provide the same amount of subsidy.” James Wilson of Downsize DC agrees.
Click to expand...

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/


In clean energy most people use the word "subsidy" for tax breaks. Big oil corportations get tax breaks for producing energy and to keep costs stable.

But most people act more negativly to a clean energy subsidy or tax breaks because those incentives go straight to the end users. An example is a company or residential customer that install solar panels on their home or buidling receive the tax breaks. Which makes sense because there are literally producing energy on their private property.

Most all basic necessities like producing food, energy and housing have subsidies or tax breaks.
 
Red said:
Pulling out of the Paris Climate treaty was about more then America First. It was America Alone. It was impossible not to notice the bitterness and anger in his words and tone. In particular when he spoke the name "Paris". So soon after crowing about how great his trip abroad was. But, what does America have to be angry about, and why would we be angry at Europe? The Paris accord was voluntary, Europe was not taking advantage of us. We stood #2 in the world in terms of our CO2 emissions. We don't have any responsibility here? We brokered the very treaty we just withdrew from. (Ah, but it was Obama who brokered it, and Obama's legacy must be destroyed, regardless if the Paris accord was a moral obligation to the future).

Why is Trump so angry? In his speech, he spoke the word "Paris" in a contemptuous manner. I have no doubt he was himself thinking of President Macron at that point, as well as reminding those among his followers who to despise, reminding those who share his anger at global "elites", and non Americans telling Americans what to do. Yet, nobody was telling us what to do. Trump was, at once, appealing to his base, his cult following, who are angry and resentful at the world, and apparently blaming the world for all their problems, and venting his own anger at being laughed at by Europeans. "We won't let anybody laugh at Americans anymore" as he put it. But it was NATO leaders who laughed, not at America, but at him, for his comical and nonsensical NATO address, and he knows it. It was President Macron who stared down his handshake, and then said it was no accident. It was that man of elitist Paris who stood up to Trump, and he knows it. You can bet Trump was thinking of Macron when he spoke the word "Paris" in a tone of spite.

He cannot get his immigration ban approved. He can't get his Wall built. But he can pull out of the Paris accord and, by so doing, say "drop dead", to Paris, and to Europe, and to the whole world. Astonishing as it may seem, is it really? Is it really so surprising that he is doing this for spite? His way of saying screw you to the rest of the world? He is that petty, and we all know he is that petty. He was already, with Scott Pruiit's help, enacting changes that guarantee the United States would not meet its commitment to the treaty. Pulling out was for show, to allow him to spite the world he is so angry at. To tell the world who the boss of America is. That's his foreign policy. The world will be punished if it slights The Donald. That is at the heart of his world view. The world is trying to take advantage of America. America must be angry at the world, including our long held friends, because Donald is angry at the world. Never mind that America can lead the transformation to renewable energy sources and economies flourishing within that transformation. Cede the leadership role to China. Spite the world and diminish America, and do so in the name of America First. Diminish the United States and call it making America great again.

This is what happens when you put a 5 year old in charge of your nation's destiny. And History will judge the manchild accordingly. Too many Americans are sleepwalking through their own history, complicit in this child's tirade. Shame on them. It's inexcusable to be so asleep at the wheel that we allow this spoiled child to have such power and influence over the destiny of his nation, and the world. Time for as many people as possible to wake up and see this emperor has no clothes.

On the other hand, the speech can also be seen as part of our culture wars, a giant middle finger to liberals in general. And we can see that attitude on this forum, where here, as in other Trump threads, any action seen as harmful to liberal worldviews is always seen by one poster in particular with unrestrained glee.

https://www.salon.com/2017/06/03/cl...pullout-is-a-giant-middle-finger-to-the-left/

"As Paris makes clear, right-wing attitudes on climate change are largely driven by hatred of tree-hugging liberals"
Click to expand...
Great post
 
Beantown said:
We could agrue semantics if you want. But the important fact to understand is that a subsidy or tax break works the same:



https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/


In clean energy most people use the word "subsidy" for tax breaks. Big oil corportations get tax breaks for producing energy and to keep costs stable.

But most people act more negativly to a clean energy subsidy or tax breaks because those incentives go straight to the end users. An example is a company or residential customer that install solar panels on their home or buidling receive the tax breaks. Which makes sense because there are literally producing energy on their private property.

Most all basic necessities like producing food, energy and housing have subsidies or tax breaks.
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely not an expert, but they don't work the same.

A subsidy would say something like "Produce 100,000 barrels of oil and you will be paid a $1,000,000 subsidy." As opposed to a tax break that would read like "Profits from your first 100,000 barrels of oil will be tax free."

One is a direct payment for production, which can offset losses on production if the price per barrel of oil drops. It helps to guarantee domestic production of a vital resource despite market forces that might make doing so otherwise unprofitable. The tax break allows a company to keep a larger portion of their profits. But of course, they need to be making profits on their production for that to matter.

One is a payment for production, independent of profits of losses. The other is a reduction of taxes paid on profits.

In many cases it might all come out the same, but in other cases it could be a BIG difference.
 
on the front page when this thread is most recent, all I see is "US pulling out of Paris"

paris-hilton-wave.jpg
 
Most necessities of life are subsidized with incentives or tax breaks. I am sure most people on here have a mortgage and we all get a tax credit when we buy a home and we can write off housing expenses.

So don't complain about them unless you can survive without food, energy, and housing.
 
Also [MENTION=146]DutchJazzer[/MENTION] keeps talking about how a "free market" should take care of climate change.

The problem is that energy/utilities is NOT a free market. It's the EXACT opposite.

Every State has a utility that is a MONOPOLY. An example in Utah: If you're not homeless you pay an electric bill. And you have no other choice but to pay Rocky Mountain Power...and the rates that they tell you. You're stuck. Totally opposite of a free market, and they keep buying coal and pulluting Utah's air. And there isn't much you can do about it.
 
Bulletproof said:
I'm absolutely not an expert, but they don't work the same.

A subsidy would say something like "Produce 100,000 barrels of oil and you will be paid a $1,000,000 subsidy." As opposed to a tax break that would read like "Profits from your first 100,000 barrels of oil will be tax free."

One is a direct payment for production, which can offset losses on production if the price per barrel of oil drops. It helps to guarantee domestic production of a vital resource despite market forces that might make doing so otherwise unprofitable. The tax break allows a company to keep a larger portion of their profits. But of course, they need to be making profits on their production for that to matter.

One is a payment for production, independent of profits of losses. The other is a reduction of taxes paid on profits.

In many cases it might all come out the same, but in other cases it could be a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

I agree but like I quoted in the article they have the same effect. A tax credit or a direct payment is just money that was essentially owed or payed directly.

Did you not even read the quote before you responded?
 
The Thriller said:
No, they aren't. California's population is exploding. The reason why it's so expensive to live there is because real estate is in such high demand. Econ 101.

It ranks in the top 15 for per capita income (along with most blue states) and top 5 in median household income.

Furthermore, California's economy is strong. Right now it's in the top 10 in the world at $2.5 trillion GDP and 5 percent unemployment.

Compare that to the Netherlands, whose GDP is $865 billion and a higher unemployment rate, 6.2 percent.

But if want to know how red states are doing, google Kansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma. Their deficits have led to the shutting down of public schools, inability to build infrastructure, and an intellectual vacuum as those who can have already left. Trickle down is failing in those states!

Get enough education for one day Dutch?
Click to expand...

The right's mythology about California and other blue states is stunning. But the right is used to strong beliefs in myths...
 
The Thriller said:
No, they aren't. California's population is exploding. The reason why it's so expensive to live there is because real estate is in such high demand. Econ 101.

It ranks in the top 15 for per capita income (along with most blue states) and top 5 in median household income.

Furthermore, California's economy is strong. Right now it's in the top 10 in the world at $2.5 trillion GDP and 5 percent unemployment.

Compare that to the Netherlands, whose GDP is $865 billion and a higher unemployment rate, 6.2 percent.

But if want to know how red states are doing, google Kansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma. Their deficits have led to the shutting down of public schools, inability to build infrastructure, and an intellectual vacuum as those who can have already left. Trickle down is failing in those states!

Get enough education for one day Dutch?
Click to expand...

To be fair it is largely government's fault that housing is so expensive in California. It's not a left right issue it is a nimby vs development issue. Most people in this country are complete assholes. They buy a home and then do everything in their power to stop others from doing the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top