Jump to content
270soft Forum
POLLWONK

Britain 2015... Cameron, Milliband, or Clegg???

2015 Eval  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. 2015 prediction...

    • David Cameron wins 2nd term.
      17
    • Ed Milliband wins.
      10
    • Nick Clegg wins.
      2
  2. 2. Is the Labour Party drifting too far leftward?

    • Yes.
      8
    • No.
      18
    • Maybe.
      3
  3. 3. If the Labour Party loses in 2015, which Labour Partier is most likely to succeed Ed Miliband?

    • David Miliband
      11
    • Ed Balls
      5
    • Andy Burnham
      5
    • Diane Abbot
      4
    • Harriet Harman
      2
    • Alan Johnson
      0
    • Ian McNicol
      0
    • Janet Royall
      0
    • Peter Hain
      1
    • Hazel Blears
      1


Recommended Posts

Polls don't look good for the Cons or the Lib Dems at the moment.

My bet is the Lib Dems suffer quite a bit, their voters unhappy with Clegg's choice to back a Conservative government. The Conservatives will take a hit because a lot of people didn't realise that a vote for the Conservatives was a vote for a conservative government. All up, I'd say it will be a good year for Labour.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Labour Party has a good shot, but they picked the wrong leader. If they had selected Ed Balls or David Milliband, they would be alot more competitive. Ed M is a good politician, just kind of bland. He needs to be careful not to steer the Labour Party too far leftward... if Cameron wins reelection, then the Tories will probably have another Thatcheresque dynasty set up.

Polls don't look good for the Cons or the Lib Dems at the moment.

My bet is the Lib Dems suffer quite a bit, their voters unhappy with Clegg's choice to back a Conservative government. The Conservatives will take a hit because a lot of people didn't realise that a vote for the Conservatives was a vote for a conservative government. All up, I'd say it will be a good year for Labour.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Labour Party has a good shot, but they picked the wrong leader. If they had selected Ed Balls or David Milliband, they would be alot more competitive. Ed M is a good politician, just kind of bland. He needs to be careful not to steer the Labour Party too far leftward... if Cameron wins reelection, then the Tories will probably have another Thatcheresque dynasty set up.

Nothing wrong with going too far to the left.

But most leaders chosen somewhat directly after losing government tend to be replaced before the next election comes around. The leader at the moment is most likely just an interm leader, who will be replaced 9 months to a year out from the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with going too far to the left.

But most leaders chosen somewhat directly after losing government tend to be replaced before the next election comes around. The leader at the moment is most likely just an interm leader, who will be replaced 9 months to a year out from the election.

Actually, there is something wrong with going too far to the left... here is a far left platform...

Redistribution of wealth is good

Balancing Budgets is not as important as social spending

Entitlements deserve more funding

We should introduce massive emission regulations

The redistribution of wealth, though attractive at first glance, is not popular among most moderate and conservative households. Middle income households tend to be more moderate. Tony Blair and the Labour Party won landslides in 1997 and 2001 because they looked like uniters. The only reason why they almost lost in 2005 was because of the Iraq war.

Balancing the budget is key and essential. need proof? look at greece.

Entitlements deserve more funding. There comes a point when things get unreasonable. I think all people realize that. I wouldn't throw $5 billion into a machine and hope to get a diet coke out of my investments. I want alot. There comes a point when it isn't worth it.

Massive emission regulations... angers drivers and other companies. Can hurt companies to a degree.

I think that the Labour got their butts kicked in 2010 because they abandoned their message of uniting. Brown was too afraid of offending party loyalists instead of reaching out to the moderates. Moderates decide the election.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is something wrong with going too far to the left... here is a far left platform...

Redistribution of wealth is good

Balancing Budgets is not as important as social spending

Entitlements deserve more funding

We should introduce massive emission regulations

The redistribution of wealth, though attractive at first glance, is not popular among most moderate and conservative households. Middle income households tend to be more moderate. Tony Blair and the Labour Party won landslides in 1997 and 2001 because they looked like uniters. The only reason why they almost lost in 2005 was because of the Iraq war.

Balancing the budget is key and essential. need proof? look at greece.

Entitlements deserve more funding. There comes a point when things get unreasonable. I think all people realize that. I wouldn't throw $5 billion into a machine and hope to get a diet coke out of my investments. I want alot. There comes a point when it isn't worth it.

Massive emission regulations... angers drivers and other companies. Can hurt companies to a degree.

I think that the Labour got their butts kicked in 2010 because they abandoned their message of uniting. Brown was too afraid of offending party loyalists instead of reaching out to the moderates. Moderates decide the election.

Redistribution of wealth tends to be very popular among everyone but the wealthy, depending on how you ask the question. In the US, the majority of middle-income households support raising taxes for the rich (wealth redistribution), and even a decent chunk of Republicans support it. I posted a link to some gallup polling somewhere in these forums a few weeks ago supporting this.

The Labor party in Australia have very much taken a balancing-the-budget stance. It is usually easy to balance the budget and keep social spending, you just have to cut out the middle-class-welfare crap and have some wealth redistribution.

Entitlements is an interesting area. Should the retired have to resort to eating cat food because their pensions are not enough? It does happen. Should the disabled be abolished into poverty because there are no jobs hiring with which they could work? Should the unemployed just be told to "get a job" when no one is hiring? Do children of rich parents deserve a better education because their parents are rich, or does every child deserve to have a good and decent education to the extent they are capable? But I don't think any party on either side of politics is advocating wasteful spending on unnecessary, excessive or ineffective entitlements.

Massive emission limits? You mean like Cameron's commitment to 50% reductions of CO2 emissions? Climate change is a global problem, and more and more, conservatives are seeing it as a problem which needs to be tackled. Every Australian former prime minister still alive supports taking action on CO2, every Australian opposition leader in the last decade except for the current one supports action on climate change. The only people saying we don't need to act on climate change are the extreme right-wingnuts, notably the Republicans in the US and the current Liberal party in Australia. At least the UK's conservatives have seen that action on climate change isn't a conservative vs. progressive, left vs. right issue, but a more fundamental issue which needs bipartisan agreement on.

In short, your "far left platform" seems much more like a moderate, centrist platform to me.

Labour got their asses handed to them because Brown was lame, and there was a sense of "it's time" about the election, people were kinda sick of Labour. There was the Lib Dem surge which sapped away votes from Labour. A good deal of people would have voted for the Lib Dems thinking they actually had a legitimate chance, when all it did was hand some Labour seats to the Cons. Labour are leading in the polls, the Lib Dems are back down to where they were, no doubt suffering a backlash because Clegg backed the Cons, which a lot of their voters would not have been happy with. Labour will probably clean up nicely at the next election, particularly if they get themselves a charismatic leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redistribution of wealth is not supported by the majority. Taxing the rich is, but in means of paying off the deficits. People would prefer not to see their money taken away, but they also don't want their entitlement programs cut. That's why taxing for BUDGET IMPROVEMENT NOT REDISTRIBUTION MAKES TAXING THE RICH POPULAR.

Great for the Australian Labour Party, but I'm talking GreatBritain.

Entitlements need reform. Social Security was founded in the 30s. The retirement age was 65. However, the average life expectancy at the time was below 70. Social Security was initially a program designed to support Seniors in their last few years. Then the life expectancy of our country grew (which is a good thing). Then people started having fewer children. At the time Social Security was passed, 21 people supported 1 beneficiary of Social Security. Now, 3 people support 1 beneficiary. Pretty soon, it will be a 2 on 1 game. I think modest adjustments to how Social Security operates are acceptable. I don't argue against Social Security being a 10-15 year support system for seniors. The status quo is like a bicycle with a flat tire. Either you can keep pumping it up with air, or you can change tires.

About Climate Change, I don't deny its possible existence. But consider this...

1.) Thirty years ago, they were worried about a 2nd Ice Age. Global cooling they called it.

2.) We didn't start using satellites to measure planetary temperatures until the 70s. That is the precise moment we discovered the temperature going up. Before the satellites, we simply took random locations and averaged it out.

3.) Less than 40% of Americans believe that Climate change is an issue. (read Gallup's polls)

As for my left-wing platform, your calling it a centrist platform surprises me. If you think this is centrist, then your definition of a far left platform must be...

1.) WE must create a welfare utopia

2.) We must ban all guns

3.) We must all become vegetarians

4.) We should add Oil to the list of banned drugs

5.) We should establish a Department of Peace and Love

Sorry, but that's the kind of platform you are suggesting is far-left.

POLLWONK

Redistribution of wealth tends to be very popular among everyone but the wealthy, depending on how you ask the question. In the US, the majority of middle-income households support raising taxes for the rich (wealth redistribution), and even a decent chunk of Republicans support it. I posted a link to some gallup polling somewhere in these forums a few weeks ago supporting this.

The Labor party in Australia have very much taken a balancing-the-budget stance. It is usually easy to balance the budget and keep social spending, you just have to cut out the middle-class-welfare crap and have some wealth redistribution.

Entitlements is an interesting area. Should the retired have to resort to eating cat food because their pensions are not enough? It does happen. Should the disabled be abolished into poverty because there are no jobs hiring with which they could work? Should the unemployed just be told to "get a job" when no one is hiring? Do children of rich parents deserve a better education because their parents are rich, or does every child deserve to have a good and decent education to the extent they are capable? But I don't think any party on either side of politics is advocating wasteful spending on unnecessary, excessive or ineffective entitlements.

Massive emission limits? You mean like Cameron's commitment to 50% reductions of CO2 emissions? Climate change is a global problem, and more and more, conservatives are seeing it as a problem which needs to be tackled. Every Australian former prime minister still alive supports taking action on CO2, every Australian opposition leader in the last decade except for the current one supports action on climate change. The only people saying we don't need to act on climate change are the extreme right-wingnuts, notably the Republicans in the US and the current Liberal party in Australia. At least the UK's conservatives have seen that action on climate change isn't a conservative vs. progressive, left vs. right issue, but a more fundamental issue which needs bipartisan agreement on.

In short, your "far left platform" seems much more like a moderate, centrist platform to me.

Labour got their @#!*% handed to them because Brown was lame, and there was a sense of "it's time" about the election, people were kinda sick of Labour. There was the Lib Dem surge which sapped away votes from Labour. A good deal of people would have voted for the Lib Dems thinking they actually had a legitimate chance, when all it did was hand some Labour seats to the Cons. Labour are leading in the polls, the Lib Dems are back down to where they were, no doubt suffering a backlash because Clegg backed the Cons, which a lot of their voters would not have been happy with. Labour will probably clean up nicely at the next election, particularly if they get themselves a charismatic leader.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Climate Change, I don't deny its possible existence. But consider this...

1.) Thirty years ago, they were worried about a 2nd Ice Age. Global cooling they called it.

2.) We didn't start using satellites to measure planetary temperatures until the 70s. That is the precise moment we discovered the temperature going up. Before the satellites, we simply took random locations and averaged it out.

3.) Less than 40% of Americans believe that Climate change is an issue. (read Gallup's polls)

Oh dear god...

I can only address this with caps lock.

YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST.

SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON PUBLIC OPINION.

YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THE SCIENCE BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE.

CLIMATE CHANCE IS NOT AN OPINION.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MAGICALLY COME ALONG AND PROVE THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS DEVOTING DECADES OF THEIR LIVES TO STUDYING CLIMATE CHANGE WRONG BY TELLING THEM THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE SATELLITES UNTIL THE 70'S.

I DON'T SEE YOU GOING UP TO ASTROPHYSICISTS AND TELLING THEM THEY LOOK AT STARS WRONG. WHY DO YOU DEGRADE THE VALIDITY OF ONE SCIENCE BUT NOT ALL OTHERS?

I'm sorry. But I'm a scientist. And when people say complete bullsh** about science, it really irks me. Climate change is happening. There isn't a climate scientist out there who disputes that. Humans have contributed to it and no climate scientists debate that. The vast majority of climate scientists believe the human contribution to be significant.

As for taxing the rich/wealth redistribution, the Gallup poll I posted recently found widespread support for making the rich pay a fair share in taxes. There were no questions about using the taxes for debt reduction. Just making sure the rich pay a fair share. It's possible that some, if not many, of the Republicans supporting increasing taxes on the rich only approve of it for debt reduction, but most of the independents and Democrats certainly aren't thinking that.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is something wrong with going too far to the left... here is a far left platform...

Redistribution of wealth is good

Balancing Budgets is not as important as social spending

Entitlements deserve more funding

We should introduce massive emission regulations

The redistribution of wealth, though attractive at first glance, is not popular among most moderate and conservative households. Middle income households tend to be more moderate. Tony Blair and the Labour Party won landslides in 1997 and 2001 because they looked like uniters. The only reason why they almost lost in 2005 was because of the Iraq war.

Balancing the budget is key and essential. need proof? look at greece.

Entitlements deserve more funding. There comes a point when things get unreasonable. I think all people realize that. I wouldn't throw $5 billion into a machine and hope to get a diet coke out of my investments. I want alot. There comes a point when it isn't worth it.

Massive emission regulations... angers drivers and other companies. Can hurt companies to a degree.

I think that the Labour got their butts kicked in 2010 because they abandoned their message of uniting. Brown was too afraid of offending party loyalists instead of reaching out to the moderates. Moderates decide the election.

This a center-left platform

Redistribution of wealth is good when the top 1 controls 40% of the wealth, we are heading towards the next Great Depression

Balancing Budgets is not as important as social spending- we can do both. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

Entitlements deserve more funding

We should introduce massive emission regulations because we need to find clean energy before China does and owns the market. The evironment must be protected.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redistribution of wealth is not supported by the majority. Taxing the rich is, but in means of paying off the deficits. People would prefer not to see their money taken away, but they also don't want their entitlement programs cut. That's why taxing for BUDGET IMPROVEMENT NOT REDISTRIBUTION MAKES TAXING THE RICH POPULAR.

Great for the Australian Labour Party, but I'm talking GreatBritain.

Entitlements need reform. Social Security was founded in the 30s. The retirement age was 65. However, the average life expectancy at the time was below 70. Social Security was initially a program designed to support Seniors in their last few years. Then the life expectancy of our country grew (which is a good thing). Then people started having fewer children. At the time Social Security was passed, 21 people supported 1 beneficiary of Social Security. Now, 3 people support 1 beneficiary. Pretty soon, it will be a 2 on 1 game. I think modest adjustments to how Social Security operates are acceptable. I don't argue against Social Security being a 10-15 year support system for seniors. The status quo is like a bicycle with a flat tire. Either you can keep pumping it up with air, or you can change tires.

About Climate Change, I don't deny its possible existence. But consider this...

1.) Thirty years ago, they were worried about a 2nd Ice Age. Global cooling they called it.

2.) We didn't start using satellites to measure planetary temperatures until the 70s. That is the precise moment we discovered the temperature going up. Before the satellites, we simply took random locations and averaged it out.

3.) Less than 40% of Americans believe that Climate change is an issue. (read Gallup's polls)

As for my left-wing platform, your calling it a centrist platform surprises me. If you think this is centrist, then your definition of a far left platform must be...

1.) WE must create a welfare utopia

2.) We must ban all guns

3.) We must all become vegetarians

4.) We should add Oil to the list of banned drugs

5.) We should establish a Department of Peace and Love

Sorry, but that's the kind of platform you are suggesting is far-left.

POLLWONK

You put in what you get out of Social Security. Children have nothing to do with supporting their parents. The Greenspan Commission already adjusted the retirement age. What you call “modest adjustments” is wildly unpopular with American People and they can’t work a few more years before they retire. What we need is more funds from Social Security through the payroll tax.

“Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.”

Presto. Social Security's long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/budget-baloney-why-social_b_824331.html

“As for my left-wing platform, your calling it a centrist platform surprises me. If you think this is centrist, then your definition of a far left platform must be...

1.) WE must create a welfare utopia

2.) We must ban all guns

3.) We must all become vegetarians

4.) We should add Oil to the list of banned drugs

5.) We should establish a Department of Peace and Love”

Welfare is there if you really needy. American is highly moral society which takes of the poor, the sick, and elderly. THINK! WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

The other four are stupid.

It's center-left and the majority of Americans support it!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This a center-left platform

Redistribution of wealth is good when the top 1 controls 40% of the wealth, we are heading towards the next Great Depression

Balancing Budgets is not as important as social spending- we can do both. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

Entitlements deserve more funding

We should introduce massive emission regulations because we need to find clean energy before China does and owns the market. The evironment must be protected.

The emission regulations isn't a left issue. Many conservative governments in Europe, including the Conservatives in the UK, have or are taking action on reducing emissions. The only major countries where conservatives deny the need for reducing emissions are the US, Canada (and even then) and Australia (and, again, it's only Tony Abbott).

It is a myth that only the left are concerned about reducing emissions. Tackling climate change is, or should be, a bipartisan issue which all sides of politics are (or should) acknowledge.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are a scientist? Congrats, but I think the one thing that we all must remember is when you write your Labs in High School and College, you also write down your errors, no matter who you are. The errors are...

1.) Scientists have spent on 30 years using satellites to judge world temperature. Every one of those years, the temperature has been rising. So while the graphs going back 500 years show a steady tick upward, in the past 30 years it showed a different pattern. Its like trying to sew together the ends of two strings. Almost impossible. We need to wait longer.

2.) Carbon Dioxide levels shouldn't be a giantic issue as long as we are replacing our dead trees with new ones. Carbon dioxide is breathed out by humans or other odd devices. Trees turn the carbon dioxide into air. Natural cycle.

Again, I don't deny the possibility that it exists. In fact, I admit that over the past 30 years our temperature has increased. But I am NOT going to support regulations on companies. I would be fine with tax breaks for companies that agree to regulate themselves at a certain level.

As for taxing the rich and redistribution of wealth, I have already spoken my case. So here is another analogy to explain...

RICH CLASS (Top 1%)- In control of most corporations. Makes lots of money.

MIDDLE CLASS (40%-99%)- In control of most office spaces. Makes good to modest wages.

LOWER CLASS (0-39%)- Generally the laborers in the population. Makes modest to low wages.

Taking money away from the rich and giving to the poor sounds extremely hospitable. But notice, if you take away 60% of the rich's wealth, then that means 60% of what they own is gone. That means a 60% decrease in flexibility of funds in corporations or businesses they operate. That often times results in layoffs and unemployment. WHO GETS LAID OFF? The middle class and lower class.

If we don't redistribute the wealth and offer equal tax breaks to all Americans of all classes, then the upper class will have more money. Then, they will be able to expand coroporations or businesses. This can result in job hiring and other positive benefits for the other classes. THe middle and lower class tax cuts will also create megabig benefits. The middle and lower class will have more to spend. Simple economics.

POLLWONK

Oh dear god...

I can only address this with caps lock.

YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST.

SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON PUBLIC OPINION.

YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THE SCIENCE BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE.

CLIMATE CHANCE IS NOT AN OPINION.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MAGICALLY COME ALONG AND PROVE THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS DEVOTING DECADES OF THEIR LIVES TO STUDYING CLIMATE CHANGE WRONG BY TELLING THEM THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE SATELLITES UNTIL THE 70'S.

I DON'T SEE YOU GOING UP TO ASTROPHYSICISTS AND TELLING THEM THEY LOOK AT STARS WRONG. WHY DO YOU DEGRADE THE VALIDITY OF ONE SCIENCE BUT NOT ALL OTHERS?

I'm sorry. But I'm a scientist. And when people say complete bullsh** about science, it really irks me. Climate change is happening. There isn't a climate scientist out there who disputes that. Humans have contributed to it and no climate scientists debate that. The vast majority of climate scientists believe the human contribution to be significant.

As for taxing the rich/wealth redistribution, the Gallup poll I posted recently found widespread support for making the rich pay a fair share in taxes. There were no questions about using the taxes for debt reduction. Just making sure the rich pay a fair share. It's possible that some, if not many, of the Republicans supporting increasing taxes on the rich only approve of it for debt reduction, but most of the independents and Democrats certainly aren't thinking that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are a scientist? Congrats, but I think the one thing that we all must remember is when you write your Labs in High School and College, you also write down your errors, no matter who you are. The errors are...

1.) Scientists have spent on 30 years using satellites to judge world temperature. Every one of those years, the temperature has been rising. So while the graphs going back 500 years show a steady tick upward, in the past 30 years it showed a different pattern. Its like trying to sew together the ends of two strings. Almost impossible. We need to wait longer.

2.) Carbon Dioxide levels shouldn't be a giantic issue as long as we are replacing our dead trees with new ones. Carbon dioxide is breathed out by humans or other odd devices. Trees turn the carbon dioxide into air. Natural cycle.

Again, I don't deny the possibility that it exists. In fact, I admit that over the past 30 years our temperature has increased. But I am NOT going to support regulations on companies. I would be fine with tax breaks for companies that agree to regulate themselves at a certain level.

As for taxing the rich and redistribution of wealth, I have already spoken my case. So here is another analogy to explain...

RICH CLASS (Top 1%)- In control of most corporations. Makes lots of money.

MIDDLE CLASS (40%-99%)- In control of most office spaces. Makes good to modest wages.

LOWER CLASS (0-39%)- Generally the laborers in the population. Makes modest to low wages.

Taking money away from the rich and giving to the poor sounds extremely hospitable. But notice, if you take away 60% of the rich's wealth, then that means 60% of what they own is gone. That means a 60% decrease in flexibility of funds in corporations or businesses they operate. That often times results in layoffs and unemployment. WHO GETS LAID OFF? The middle class and lower class.

If we don't redistribute the wealth and offer equal tax breaks to all Americans of all classes, then the upper class will have more money. Then, they will be able to expand coroporations or businesses. This can result in job hiring and other positive benefits for the other classes. THe middle and lower class tax cuts will also create megabig benefits. The middle and lower class will have more to spend. Simple economics.

POLLWONK

Climate Change is very real is supported by 96% of scientists http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf We need massive fines for companies who don't obey our regulations and we need tougher regulations to combat climate change now! Planting trees are not enough!If we wait any longer, we are going to cause massive change in the weather which we won't like.

Corporations have plenty of money and can be afford to be taxed much higher. They are not going to lay people off because they are making less money. Under President Reagan, Bush, and Clinton we had much higher rates and we had good economies. Under President George W. Bush and Barack Obama, we have unpaid tax cuts and wars that blew a huge hole in our debt. LBJ and Clinton both had balanced budgets. Clinton had budget surpluses (by raising taxes). Both were Democrats. The last Republican president to preside over a balanced budget was Eisenhower. Unless the Republicans are planning on bring back Eisenhower’s policies, they need to shut up about deficits and balanced budgets. Eisenhower’s lowest Marginal tax rate 91%.

“Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.” -Warren Buffett, 3rd richest person on Earth

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

Engineer Explains Taxes at Occupy Wall Street
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH MY GOSH! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ME??? I HAVE SAID THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!! BUT PLEASE READ BELOW!!!!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx

And regarding your buddy Warren Buffett, if WB wants to give more to the Fed, then let's pass the GOP's plan. Heck, why not? Its a great idea giving donations to the government! A great option! Patriotism! We don't need to tax everything!!! It may even make Obama more popular...

Climate Change is very real is supported by 96% of scientists http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Corporations have plenty of money and can be afford to be taxed much higher. They are not going to lay people off because they are making less money. Under President Reagan, Bush, and Clinton we had much higher rates and we had good economies. Under President George W. Bush and Barack Obama, we have unpaid tax cuts and wars that blew a huge hole in our debt. LBJ and Clinton both had balanced budgets. Clinton had budget surpluses (by raising taxes). Both were Democrats. The last Republican president to preside over a balanced budget was Eisenhower. Unless the Republicans are planning on bring back Eisenhower’s policies, they need to shut up about deficits and balanced budgets. Eisenhower’s lowest Marginal tax rate 91%.

“Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.” -Warren Buffett, 3rd richest person on Earth

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

Engineer Explains Taxes at Occupy Wall Street

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH MY GOSH! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ME??? I HAVE SAID THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!! BUT PLEASE READ BELOW!!!!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx

And regarding your buddy Warren Buffett, if WB wants to give more to the Fed, then let's pass the GOP's plan. Heck, why not? Its a great idea giving donations to the government! A great option! Patriotism! We don't need to tax everything!!! It may even make Obama more popular...

We have to do something now about global warming now! Fox "News" and other conservative media put out their propaganda and brainwashed the American people. We need to raise taxes on everyone because we have huge debt and taxes cuts don't create jobs and increase the deficit.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I don't deny the possibility that it exists. In fact, I admit that over the past 30 years our temperature has increased. But I am NOT going to support regulations on companies. I would be fine with tax breaks for companies that agree to regulate themselves at a certain level.

Protecting the environment and ensuring that your grandchildren have a future is less important than the economy and the richest corporations in the worlds bottom line. Got ya.

Also, again, you are not a scientist. You are not going to magically come along with some BS about satellites and poke holes in a well established theory accepted by a supermajority of scientists because you somehow know something which people far far far smarter than you don't. Right. I'll believe that.

And finally, scientists have measured global temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years, and global atmospheric CO2 levels going back just as far. We have a very good idea what temperatures have looked like over a long period in Earth's history, and never has there been such a sharp rise in temperatures and CO2 levels over such a short time. Also, trees aren't the biggest absorbers of CO2 on the planet. Here's your homework: find out what is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion has gone off the rails. The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what Pollwonk happens to think about climate change, but rather what is 'left wing' in the context of British Politics. In the UK only the far, far, fringe nutter right ('Lord' Monckton springs to mind, but I don't believe it's even the official position of UKIP) deny that climate change has a manmade source; the debate is over what should be done about it with right vs left a matter of legal vs market solutions (so in the UK 'cap and trade' is actually a centre or centre-right policy. Certainly when the Orange Book (a book of policy proposals for making the LibDems more market-liberal to which many of the current party highheidyins contributed (Nick Clegg, David Laws, Chris Huhne etc) was published the focus on Emissions Trading schemes being a market based solution was treated as being a sign of a drift to the right. Similarly there are disagreements which mirror the debate on nuclear weapons (worth having included BTW, as a low priority issue) with multilateralists butting heads with unilateralists.

Pollwonk - You might be correct as regards the alignment question in the US but you clearly don't understand British politics (even the vocabulary is off; we don't have 'social security entitlements' we have the welfare state and benefits. Trivial distinctions perhaps but rhetorical packaging is significant. We, like you have an inheritance tax, but we call it an 'inheritance tax' rather than a 'death tax' or 'an estate tax').

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can never start predicting too early!

Submit your votes and comment!

POLLWONK!!!

As usual with UK elections, the result will be determined by money since there are no effective ceilings on UK spending. This means that the Conservatives will have a head start as they usually manage to pile up a shitload of cash to spend.

Labour's success in modern times was almost entirely down to the ability of the party to attract business money during Blair's leadership. There is no sign that Milliband's leadership is going to tap into that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfonzo, I give up. Obviosly, you are not reading my posts because you keep thinking that I don't believe its real. I BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! MY BELIEF IS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THE STATISTICS AND THEIR METHODS OF TESTING!!!! EVER SINCE WE STARTED USING SATELLITES, WORLD TEMPERATURES HAVE GONE UP! I THINK ITS GOOD THEY'RE FINDING THIS OUT! BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MAN IS ATTRIBUTING TO THIS OR IF ITS THE EARTH'S NATURAL WAY!!!! CAUSE THE EARTH DOESN'T OPERATE ON OUR TIME!!!

I agree with DuncanC about this conversation. I was never looking to start an argument. You accused me of putting forward a centrist platform. I'm sorry, but if you look at the Enviroment issue on P4Ever2008, the description I gave matched the definition of left wing pretty well! I will not attack you for your idea of a centrist platform (no matter how much I may disagree with it).

Protecting the environment and ensuring that your grandchildren have a future is less important than the economy and the richest corporations in the worlds bottom line. Got ya.

Also, again, you are not a scientist. You are not going to magically come along with some BS about satellites and poke holes in a well established theory accepted by a supermajority of scientists because you somehow know something which people far far far smarter than you don't. Right. I'll believe that.

And finally, scientists have measured global temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years, and global atmospheric CO2 levels going back just as far. We have a very good idea what temperatures have looked like over a long period in Earth's history, and never has there been such a sharp rise in temperatures and CO2 levels over such a short time. Also, trees aren't the biggest absorbers of CO2 on the planet. Here's your homework: find out what is.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Duncan,

Sorry about the confusion. We Americans somehow found ourselves in an argument over Social Security... :b... Our bad.

POLLWONK

This discussion has gone off the rails. The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what Pollwonk happens to think about climate change, but rather what is 'left wing' in the context of British Politics. In the UK only the far, far, fringe nutter right ('Lord' Monckton springs to mind, but I don't believe it's even the official position of UKIP) deny that climate change has a manmade source; the debate is over what should be done about it with right vs left a matter of legal vs market solutions (so in the UK 'cap and trade' is actually a centre or centre-right policy. Certainly when the Orange Book (a book of policy proposals for making the LibDems more market-liberal to which many of the current party highheidyins contributed (Nick Clegg, David Laws, Chris Huhne etc) was published the focus on Emissions Trading schemes being a market based solution was treated as being a sign of a drift to the right. Similarly there are disagreements which mirror the debate on nuclear weapons (worth having included BTW, as a low priority issue) with multilateralists butting heads with unilateralists.

Pollwonk - You might be correct as regards the alignment question in the US but you clearly don't understand British politics (even the vocabulary is off; we don't have 'social security entitlements' we have the welfare state and benefits. Trivial distinctions perhaps but rhetorical packaging is significant. We, like you have an inheritance tax, but we call it an 'inheritance tax' rather than a 'death tax' or 'an estate tax').

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Elliot! I believe the same thing about Global Warming. I have stated my view on a solution to global warming without hindering economic growth. I have stated my position on taxes. I don't agree with your argument that Fox News brainwashes Americans. Sure they have Hannity and O'Reilly, but CNN has Jack Cafferty. MSNBC had Keith Olbermann. PBS had Dan Rather. Welcome to the wide wonderful world of American media!

Back to Britain... David Cameron is not in the best shape politically. However, Ed Milliband may pull the Labour to far to the left. In that case, Nick Clegg may reemerge. Cameron will certainly lose seats, but how much depends on the Labour's popularity.

We have to do something now about global warming now! Fox "News" and other conservative media put out their propaganda and brainwashed the American people. We need to raise taxes on everyone because we have huge debt and taxes cuts don't create jobs and increase the deficit.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Elliot! I believe the same thing about Global Warming. I have stated my view on a solution to global warming without hindering economic growth. I have stated my position on taxes. I don't agree with your argument that Fox News brainwashes Americans. Sure they have Hannity and O'Reilly, but CNN has Jack Cafferty. MSNBC had Keith Olbermann. PBS had Dan Rather. Welcome to the wide wonderful world of American media!

Back to Britain... David Cameron is not in the best shape politically. However, Ed Milliband may pull the Labour to far to the left. In that case, Nick Clegg may reemerge. Cameron will certainly lose seats, but how much depends on the Labour's popularity.

You need regulate because if you don't, we will experience drastic climate change within the next 40 years. I have no problem with opinion hosts expressing their opinion and remaining objective, but FAUX NEWS DOES PROPAGANDA, Roger Ailes writes what ALL Faux News says.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfonzo, I give up. Obviosly, you are not reading my posts because you keep thinking that I don't believe its real. I BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! MY BELIEF IS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THE STATISTICS AND THEIR METHODS OF TESTING!!!! EVER SINCE WE STARTED USING SATELLITES, WORLD TEMPERATURES HAVE GONE UP! I THINK ITS GOOD THEY'RE FINDING THIS OUT! BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MAN IS ATTRIBUTING TO THIS OR IF ITS THE EARTH'S NATURAL WAY!!!! CAUSE THE EARTH DOESN'T OPERATE ON OUR TIME!!!

I have read your posts. You're relying on this one argument about satellites, which isn't even a valid argument. You think that somehow, all of the worlds climate scientists have missed that satellites are somehow biasing our measurements. It's not true. We don't measure global temperatures "by satellites".

What we have measured is global temperatures over the last hundreds of thousands of years. We have also measured global CO2 levels. There is a very strong correlation between global CO2 levels and global temperatures. We have also measured an immensely sharp rise in CO2 levels over the last 50 years, sharper than has ever been seen before. At no time in history has atmospheric CO2 risen so dramatically. There is no non-anthropogenic explaination for why CO2 could have risen so dramatically over the last 50 years - the period of time in which humans have been pumping larger and larger amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (coincidence? It doesn't look that way).

So, to sum up:

CO2 levels and global temperatures are very strongly linked (irrefutable fact)

CO2 levels have risen over the last 50 years quicker than they ever have before (irrefutable fact)

You can deny the human influence on atmospheric CO2 levels all you want, or you can deny the correlation between CO2 and temperature all day, but you'd be a moron to try.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfonzo, I give up. Obviosly, you are not reading my posts because you keep thinking that I don't believe its real. I BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! MY BELIEF IS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THE STATISTICS AND THEIR METHODS OF TESTING!!!! EVER SINCE WE STARTED USING SATELLITES, WORLD TEMPERATURES HAVE GONE UP! I THINK ITS GOOD THEY'RE FINDING THIS OUT! BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MAN IS ATTRIBUTING TO THIS OR IF ITS THE EARTH'S NATURAL WAY!!!! CAUSE THE EARTH DOESN'T OPERATE ON OUR TIME!!!

I agree with DuncanC about this conversation. I was never looking to start an argument. You accused me of putting forward a centrist platform. I'm sorry, but if you look at the Enviroment issue on P4Ever2008, the description I gave matched the definition of left wing pretty well! I will not attack you for your idea of a centrist platform (no matter how much I may disagree with it).

82% of Scientist believe it is man-made. Note a "Far-Left" or a "Far Right" view does not it is unreasonable if facts back it up. A "Centrist" View doesn't make it reasonable if facts don't support it.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×