Professor Hal Lewis Joins The Global Warming Policy Foundation

So what, the Dmocrats received nearly $1,000,000 from those corrupt bastards Goldman Sachs, why haven't they given that back?

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2...4795-on-goldman-sachs-campaign-contributions/

Fire Andrea Mitchell - Stop the leftist propaganda machine! ??????????

Hey tom, is this 'I am liberal on many issues' ever going to manifest, or is that just obfuscation on your part?

Why should Goldman Sachs give contributions to Republicans, they already fight for Wall Street, the elite and corporations based on ideology. And if Republicans ever gain enough power, they will do Wall Street's bidding to wipe out the middle class and complete the plutocracy Reagan started.

Says WHO? The father of Reaganomics.

Wall Street Targets the Elderly
Looting Social Security

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Years ago with stagflation defeated and a rising stock market, I favored privatizing Social Security as a way of creating a funded retirement system and producing greater savings and larger incomes for retirees. At that time Wall Street was interested, not for my reasons, but in order to collect the fees from managing the funds.

Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.

After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Street’s dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyone’s old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables--a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror--are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts"]Paul Craig Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Paul_craig_roberts.jpg" class="image" title="Paul Craig Roberts"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Paul_craig_roberts.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/4/4a/Paul_craig_roberts.jpg[/ame] Roberts served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.
 
BFGRn, as a concerned advocate of the average citizen, you should be behind protectionism 100%, instead of arguing about social programs. People will never accept people doing nothing for something. The best bet is to force corporations to keep jobs in the country.
 
BFGRn, as a concerned advocate of the average citizen, you should be behind protectionism 100%, instead of arguing about social programs. People will never accept people doing nothing for something. The best bet is to force corporations to keep jobs in the country.

I don't know that you can force corporations to keep jobs in the country. I am for incentives for corporations that do keep jobs in the country, and I have even entertained the thought of taxing the living shit out of the ones that don't. If they don't like it, let THEM go live in the squalor their wages support. They don't deserve the privilege of living in America.


But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.
Edmund Burke
 
Jesus gawd. Not only are you a paranoid delusional but now you're just talking like a garden variety idiot. Any human produced compound that is is excess of natures ability to recycle it trough natural processes and which can have deleterious affects on our biosphere is by definition a pollutant. Including carbon dioxide.

according to the stomatal derived CO2 concentration, which is calculated by the size of stomata of plants and is very reliable, CO2 levels have been in the same range we are now experiencing and current stomata are similarly sized and densities are in the same range.
Unprecedented? I don't think so.
The alarming rate of warming? Flat!



CO2SI.png
 
I don't know that you can force corporations to keep jobs in the country. I am for incentives for corporations that do keep jobs in the country, and I have even entertained the thought of taxing the living shit out of the ones that don't. If they don't like it, let THEM go live in the squalor their wages support. They don't deserve the privilege of living in America.


But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.
Edmund Burke

It's called restriction on imports, tariffs, or cancelling relations with totalitarian nations all together.

I don't know how you're so ignorant of traditional tools of statecraft.

I do like your ceo deportation program though.:clink:
 
peer reviewed link alert:


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;292/5525/2310

Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary


Abstarct:
Understanding the link between the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and Earth's temperature underpins much of paleoclimatology and our predictions of future global warming. Here, we use the inverse relationship between leaf stomatal indices and the partial pressure of CO2 in modern Ginkgo biloba and Metasequoia glyptostroboides to develop a CO2 reconstruction based on fossil Ginkgo and Metasequoia cuticles for the middle Paleocene to early Eocene and middle Miocene. Our reconstruction indicates that CO2 remained between 300 and 450 parts per million by volume for these intervals with the exception of a single high estimate near the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. These results suggest that factors in addition to CO2 are required to explain these past intervals of global warmth.
 
Peer reviewed link alert:
Stomatal density and stomatal index as indicators of paleoatmospheric CO2 concentration


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6W-42R0TDB-


1&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1505122561&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5e83abcd7e3434d64663df0cdb4a935a&searchtype=a


Abstract

A growing number of studies use the plant species-specific inverse relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and stomatal density (SD) or stomatal index (SI) as a proxy for paleo-CO2 levels. A total of 285 previously published SD and 145 SI responses to variable CO2 concentrations from a pool of 176 C3 plant species are analyzed here to test the reliability of this method. The percentage of responses inversely responding to CO2 rises from 40 and 36% (for SD and SI, respectively) in experimental studies to 88 and 94% (for SD and SI, respectively) in fossil studies. The inconsistent experimental responses verify previous concerns involving this method, however the high percentage of fossil responses showing an inverse relationship clearly validates the method when applied over time scales of similar length. Furthermore, for all groups of observations, a positive relationship between CO2 and SD/SI is found in only ≤12% of cases. Thus, CO2 appears to inversely affect stomatal initiation, although the mechanism may involve genetic adaptation and therefore is often not clearly expressed under short CO2 exposure times.

Experimental responses of SD and SI based on open-top chambers (OTCs) inversely relate to CO2 less often than greenhouse-based responses (P<0.01 for both SD and SI), and should be avoided when experimental responses are required for CO2 reconstructions. In the combined data set, hypostomatous species follow the inverse relationship more often than amphistomatous species (56 vs. 44% for SD; 69 vs. 32% for SI; P<0.03 for both comparisons). Both the SD and SI of fossil responses are equally likely to inversely relate to CO2 when exposed to elevated versus subambient CO2 concentrations (relative to today). This result casts doubt on previous claims that stomata cannot respond to CO2 concentrations above present-day levels. Although the proportion of SD and SI responses inversely relating to CO2 are similar, SD is more strongly affected by various environmental stresses, and thus SI-based CO2 reconstructions are probably more accurate.
 
peer reviewed link alert:


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;292/5525/2310

Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary


Abstarct:
Understanding the link between the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and Earth's temperature underpins much of paleoclimatology and our predictions of future global warming. Here, we use the inverse relationship between leaf stomatal indices and the partial pressure of CO2 in modern Ginkgo biloba and Metasequoia glyptostroboides to develop a CO2 reconstruction based on fossil Ginkgo and Metasequoia cuticles for the middle Paleocene to early Eocene and middle Miocene. Our reconstruction indicates that CO2 remained between 300 and 450 parts per million by volume for these intervals with the exception of a single high estimate near the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. These results suggest that factors in addition to CO2 are required to explain these past intervals of global warmth.

Meet your daddy!

Tertiary was marked by the earliest recognizable hominoid relatives of humans such as Proconsul, an extinct genus of primates that existed from 23 to 17 million years ago during the Early Miocene epoch.
220px-Proconsul_NT.jpg
 
Fire Andrea Mitchell - Stop the leftist propaganda machine! ??????????

Hey tom, is this 'I am liberal on many issues' ever going to manifest, or is that just obfuscation on your part?

Why should Goldman Sachs give contributions to Republicans, they already fight for Wall Street, the elite and corporations based on ideology. And if Republicans ever gain enough power, they will do Wall Street's bidding to wipe out the middle class and complete the plutocracy Reagan started.

Says WHO? The father of Reaganomics.

Wall Street Targets the Elderly
Looting Social Security

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Years ago with stagflation defeated and a rising stock market, I favored privatizing Social Security as a way of creating a funded retirement system and producing greater savings and larger incomes for retirees. At that time Wall Street was interested, not for my reasons, but in order to collect the fees from managing the funds.

Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.

After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Street’s dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyone’s old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables--a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror--are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

Paul Craig Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Roberts served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

I think you are confusing being a Liberal with agitprop, as you say Goldman Sachs don't need to give money to the GOP. They give money to the Dems to get carbon trade legislation for which they will make hundreds of millions of dollars.
 
I think you are confusing being a Liberal with agitprop, as you say Goldman Sachs don't need to give money to the GOP. They give money to the Dems to get carbon trade legislation for which they will make hundreds of millions of dollars.

tom, Republicans believe bubble schemes ARE economic prosperity. Wall Street is who they cater to. We saw that when they opposed Wall Street reform, during the health care debate and by their dogma that the rich bankers don't need regulation.

You have the right to your opinion, but America and England are not the same.

The GOP's obstruction on an energy bill is not about poliCY, it is about poliTICS.
 
tom, Republicans believe bubble schemes ARE economic prosperity. Wall Street is who they cater to. We saw that when they opposed Wall Street reform, during the health care debate and by their dogma that the rich bankers don't need regulation.

You have the right to your opinion, but America and England are not the same.

The GOP's obstruction on an energy bill is not about poliCY, it is about poliTICS.

And forced investment into "green energy" stupidity is just another way to create a new bubble.

Stop being stupid.
 
tom, Republicans believe bubble schemes ARE economic prosperity. Wall Street is who they cater to. We saw that when they opposed Wall Street reform, during the health care debate and by their dogma that the rich bankers don't need regulation.

You have the right to your opinion, but America and England are not the same.

The GOP's obstruction on an energy bill is not about poliCY, it is about poliTICS.

We're all subject to the same economic dynamics, if that wasn't true then how did the UK end up as fucked as the US by the 2007 banking crisis?
 
Back
Top