Senator Ted Cruz for US President?

[Garyt]

Employers and "evil corporations" pass on "externalities" costs to their employees and to their customers. They do not pay these costs from their own wealth. ultimately the average Joe pays.

Yes they may pass these costs on. But they do not deduct it from the employees paycheck.

And if they indeed pass costs for worker's compensation on, which is difficult to prove but I'll agree with you on, this just makes Worker's comp like other social programs. You don't think employers pass the cost of mandatory healthcare on? Unemployment is another socialistic program for certain, but you don't think the cost of it is passed on?

We have an interesting definition for what is and is not a social program in the US. Anything new, such as mandatory healthcare, is definitely called a social program. Other things, such as Worker's Com, the GI Bill, or food stamps may or may not be called socialism depending on an arbitrary decision.

This is clearly socialism, though it only benefited a portion of the population:

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-346, 58 Stat. 284m), known informally as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). Benefits included low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend university, high school or vocational education, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to every veteran who had been on active duty during the war years for at least ninety days and had not been dishonorably discharged; combat was not required.[1] By 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 5.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program.[

[Dave Saxton]

Gary, google The Communist Manifesto. While your at it, google The Fabian Society. This might help you with definitions.

[Garyt]

Well Dave, pretty much in line with what you are talking about - Lets look at the specifics on Liberal British welfare reforms of the early 20th century, which were part of the programs pushed by the Fabian Society you mention:

The Liberal welfare reforms (1906–1914) were acts of social legislation passed by the British Liberal Party after the 1906 General Election.

Under Part 2 of the National Insurance Act 1911, which dealt with unemployment insurance, most insured workers were given seven shillings in unemployment benefit which could be claimed for up to 15 weeks a year.

The National Insurance Act (Part I) passed in 1911 gave workers the right to sick pay of 9s a week and free medical treatment in return for a payment for 4d (the payments would last for 26 weeks of sickness). The medical treatment was provided by doctors who belonged to a "panel" in each district. Doctors received a fee from the insurance fund for each "panel" patient they treated. The National Insurance Act (Part II) gave workers the right to unemployment pay of 7s 6d a week for 15 weeks in return for a payment of 2½d a week.

n 1908, pensions were introduced for those over 70. They were paid 5s a week (estimates of the value of this in 2010 are difficult to ascertain, the average wage of a labourer being around 30s. a week[16]) to single men and women and 7s 6d to married couples, on a sliding scale. The single persons rate applied to those over 70 earning under £21; this sum could be collected at the local post office.[16] The pensions were means-tested (to receive the pension, one had to earn less than £31.50 annually)

In 1907, the number of free scholarship places in secondary schools was increased. If working-class pupils passed a scholarship examination, then their fees would be paid for them by the Local Education Authority (LEA). A quarter of places in most secondary schools would be reserved for scholarship pupils. Bright working-class children were therefore provided with the opportunity to climb "the educational ladder", while for those pupils who failed the scholarship exam, some LEAs had "Central Schools" which provided a practically based curriculum for children between the ages of 11 and 15.[10]

A whole list of welfare reforms passed by liberals. Unemployment insurance, national healthcare, pensions similar to our social security, paid college education.

I think the problem is many of these early reforms have been in place in Europe and America for over 100 years, and have become ingrained with the fabric of society to where many of them are not considered Socialistic programs or welfare, but they were the cutting edge of welfare reform 100 years ago. They have been around 100 years or more, but they still were/are socialistic programs.

[Dave Saxton]

You keep getting distracted by the trees............

[Garyt]

You keep getting distracted by the trees............

Not at all. My point I have been trying to illustrate is that our economy/government has been through the past 100 years and still is a mixture of socialism and capitalism, with government control.

The only question for most is how much socialism and how much government control?

There are some on the far far right that might believe in no socialism, no government control (the Koch brothers are two that come to mind off the top of my head), but I would hope/think they are clearly in the minority.

I think if that can be agreed upon and realized it would do wonders for establishing some common ground. To get some of the far right to admit they support some socialistic programs is the hard part

BTW - Are additional costs of labor such as workers comp always passed down? Not always or entirely. Supply and demand factors in as well. For simplisticity sake, let's take a McDonalds. They have a rise in their comp cost, but so does Burger King. However, Burger Kings holds their prices steady, with minimal increase, as they think their fast food market prices will not bear much of an increase. McDonalds then loses some business to Buger King. They can try to compete with price of compete on another playing field, perhaps with more healthy choices. But the cost of worker's comp and other labor costs are not always born by the consumer.

A company I worked for provided security for the government. We saw a major work comp increase. Did we pass this on to our client? No, we rebid with a similar price that we had on the expiring contract, and took less profit.

[Dave Saxton]

Nope you missed it... oh well..

[Garyt]

Well Dave, keep making your own points to yourself, apparently we are having two different discussions.

[RF]

[
That's almost funny, TF. To take such a stand on a hotly contested topic is what I find humorous. That is it is hotly contested is in itself humorous to a point as well. Really RF, there is indeed news in the world besides Fox.

Flippant and patronising comments and attitude do nothing to advance your case. I have never listened to Fox as I have no access to it.

What we do know:
1) The earth's temperature is rising rapidly, faster than any in recorded history.
2) CO2 In the atmosphere is also increasing. And from what I have read, it's higher than what they have seen in ice core samples.
3) Man produces much C02, and the production of C02 from man has increased.

All circumstantial, yes. But it very much points the finger at man increasing the C02 in the atmosphere.

Circumstantial?
1) Is factually incorrect. There was some evidence of warming from the mid 1970's to around 2010, but not very much. Since 2011 global temperatures have peaked and there is evidence of a slight fall.

2) and to a lesser extent 3) are correct but the CO2 content is still a tiny fraction of 1% of Earth's atmosphere. Not enough to alter temperatures significantly on their own.

My guess is these are similar to those that believe evolution is a farce and that the more is less than a million years old. It's kind of funny - if the academics don't agree with you opinion, then they are just wrong. No logical reason behind it, they are just wrong. Very closed minded and xenophobic.

This ignorant rant conveniently forgets that that the majority of climate scientists do not agree on ''global warming'' even if the tiny minority that do misrepresent the views of their profession to further their own sectional interests. My views on based on the scientific arguments of that profession, not Fox or the Tea Party.

[Garyt]

Flippant and patronising comments and attitude do nothing to advance your case.

OK, I'd agree, I went a bit too far with the rant. My apologies.

I've received similar on this thread, though not from you.

Circumstantial?

Circumstantial yes. While the facts are true, it implies but not specify that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is a cause of the warming.

This ignorant rant conveniently forgets that that the majority of climate scientists do not agree on ''global warming'' even if the tiny minority that do misrepresent the views of their profession to further their own sectional interests. My views on based on the scientific arguments of that profession, not Fox or the Tea Party.

The issue we have here is finding a true "independent" study. I'm sure on about every study someone received a grant from someone and there are often political ties. My understanding though is that the majority view among scientists is that the warming is man induced.

Sorry for the comments and lumping you together - but their is a reasonably numerous group in the republican/tea party that has many beliefs not at all backed by and often against science. The age of the Earth and Evolution are two of these. Osama Bin Laden hiding in a basement of the White House is another

Another issue, a bill that was passed in a strong republican state that I have mentioned on another thread allows discrimination if the party feels there religion states they should discriminate, a rather stupid law that was not well thought out.

You may be shocked how many there are that actually believe these things. I work with many that do. It's these types that it can be seen from polls and the passage of stupid legislation that constitute a good portion of the republican base. I think this "base" gets even higher representation within the tea party. Heck, I don't just think it, it's pretty obvious based on polling data.

A CNN article:

Washington (CNN) - Half of the people who identify with the tea party in a new poll reject the science of global warming (50%) and evolution (51%), sentiments that some observers believe portray an increasingly religious electorate that mimics some GOP presidential hopefuls.

Mind you that not believing in global warming means they do not believe the earth is getting warmer - it is not in reference as to whether or not man influences this.

My fault for assuming you to have similar beliefs as much of the republican/conservative/tea party base, though many in this "base" have some irrational views, many conflicting with science.

[RF]

Circumstantial yes. While the facts are true, it implies but not specify that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is a cause of the warming.

''Circumstantial'' and ''balance of probability'' is not rigorous proof and a scientific community should not accept such flimsy conclusions, unless they are going back to pre-Enlightenment dogma. The methodology of Karl Popper in using the falsification process to challenge scientific theory would throw out any of the IPCC ethos.
Fact remains is that global temperatures are not rising. That information comes from within the IPCC itself.

The issue we have here is finding a true "independent" study. I'm sure on about every study someone received a grant from someone and there are often political ties. My understanding though is that the majority view among scientists is that the warming is man induced.

Where does your understanding come from? Are you up to date with the most recent studies?

Sorry for the comments and lumping you together - but their is a reasonably numerous group in the republican/tea party that has many beliefs not at all backed by and often against science. The age of the Earth and Evolution are two of these. Osama Bin Laden hiding in a basement of the White House is another
Another issue, a bill that was passed in a strong republican state that I have mentioned on another thread allows discrimination if the party feels there religion states they should discriminate, a rather stupid law that was not well thought out.

I am not based in the United States, I live in Great Britain. Most of the recent studies on the subject have been evaluated by Roger Helmer, who is a member of the European Parliament, who has demonstrated that the 15,000 academic reports which the IPCC classifies as supporting ''global warming'' are actually neutral on the subject, due to lack of sufficient evidence that would constitute proof. Simply because these articles refer to ''global warming'' they are automatically assumed to support the theory. Even articles questioning the concept, simply because they mention it, are taken to agree with ''global warming.'' Roger has stated that the number of climate scientists who actively promote ''global warming'' constitute about one tenth of one per cent of the alleged membership of the IPCC. There are a substantial number of scientists in the IPCC who actively disagree with ''global warming'' whose views are suppressed by their peers, some have had to take legal action or threatened to have legal action to get their names removed from reports promoting ''global warming.''

You may be shocked how many there are that actually believe these things. I work with many that do. It's these types that it can be seen from polls and the passage of stupid legislation that constitute a good portion of the republican base. I think this "base" gets even higher representation within the tea party. Heck, I don't just think it, it's pretty obvious based on polling data.
My fault for assuming you to have similar beliefs as much of the republican/conservative/tea party base, though many in this "base" have some irrational views, many conflicting with science.

I repeat, I am not in the United States. I am well aware of these views you mention.

For the record I am an atheist, I think the universe is based on the laws of physics and chemistry and not creationism. Earth's atmosphere is in a constant state of microclimatic change, for which the biggest single influence is the Sun. Man's influence is very small and localised, possibly the biggest single influence there is the water extraction from rivers that has contributed to the drying up of the Aral Sea.

Finally I ask you to consider one scientific question. Earth has an atmosphere where carbon dioxide comprises less than one half of one per cent. The planet Mars has an atmosphere that is 97% carbon dioxide. So why isn't Mars burning up? Its temperatures are way below freezing point - if carbon dioxide is such a greenhouse gas Mars should be a warm planet, even allowing for the thinner atmosphere and Mars being further away from the Sun.
And consider the planets Jupiter and Saturn - they have vast quantities of methane in their atmospheres, a gas that stores heat far more efficiently than carbon dioxide. Yet despite the stupendous gravity and thickness of atmospheres on these two planets, their temperatures are hundreds of degrees below freezing.

[Steve Crandell]

You are not going to get proof of Global Warming. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty overwhelming, though. The insistence on "proof" is tantamount to counting the number of angels on a pin head.

[Dave Saxton]

You are not going to get proof of Global Warming. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty overwhelming, though. The insistence on "proof" is tantamount to counting the number of angels on a pin head.

The scientific data I have seen (and I have seen it) put the preponderance of evidence against co2 causation. As Rodger Helmer has rightly put it, political solutions, are "unnecessary, certain to be ineffective, and ruinously expensive."

[Steve Crandell]

Personally, I don't believe anything of any significance will be done to counteract global warming, human nature being what it is. What ever is happening, will continue to happen.

What we can do, and are doing, is reduce the health impact of motor vehicle pollution in our cities. I suppose you think that is a hoax also, and I'm sure such efforts reduce profit margins pretty much across the board.

[RF]

Personally, I don't believe anything of any significance will be done to counteract global warming, human nature being what it is. What ever is happening, will continue to happen.

The thing is, nothing is happening - so any measures to counter-act something that is not happening will have no effect. What is left is the cost to the taxpayer. And until now the taxpayer has been given no choice - something that I call ''taxation without representation'' - a phrase that should have some reasonance in the USA, should it not?

What we can do, and are doing, is reduce the health impact of motor vehicle pollution in our cities. I suppose you think that is a hoax also, and I'm sure such efforts reduce profit margins pretty much across the board.

The second sentence here again resorts to flippant, patronising comments based on ignorance of what I believe. Britain has rightly some of the toughest controls on pollution and motor vehicle exhausts in the world. Particular emphasis is being laid on reducing motor vehicle particulate emissions, especially from diesel fuel. Governments are actively promoting the adoption of electric cars and buses, and long term are encouraging research into hydrogen powered engines. Such efforts in time will probably raise profit margins from selling cleaner vehicles, while in the meantime the investment in these new technologies will raise disposable incomes and promote economic growth.

[RF]

You are not going to get proof of Global Warming. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty overwhelming, though. The insistence on "proof" is tantamount to counting the number of angels on a pin head.

I am not asking for the holy grail.

I am asking for the detailed scientific model and empirical evidence that the world is warming up through increases in CO2 caused by human activity, all explained in plain English. A scientific model that can stand scrutiny and open examination.

Instead of being provided with this information people who challenge the climate change proposers are subjected to abuse, bullying, intimidation and character assassination, in some cases in Britain with loss of employment and university position. A standard tactic is to close down any discussion or debate as quickly as possible, saying that ''there is overwhelming evidence'' and that ''97% of climate scientists support global warming'' without producing any hard evidence to support the thesis. My conclusion from that behaviour is that the case for ''global warming'' is a sham - otherwise why go to such lengths to silence critics and debate?
Why not simply answer the question?

And without resorting to flippancy, sarcasm or any other form of insolence and contempt.