@kazs615

there is a reason why those Republicans give to those charities and that is because they get to write those donations off on their tax returns.

we had eight years of republicanism and conservatism under Reagan and there is a reason most of the poor and the african american community consider him to be the worst president ever just as there is with Bush and his eight years of helping out his daddy's friends to get richer and trying to fight his daddy's wars, plus trying to make it impossible to be able to sue doctors while not caring if african americans and lower class citizens sank or swam unless they were willing to go be expendable in an ill-funded 'cause that would cut into the net profits going to Cheney's Haliburton war for oil.

IMO being more social is good.

Having a big country like the US acting anti-social, like it was in the past is very bad.

For example if you allow companies to polute more than in other countries, this drags down the global standard. As companies in better more environment aware societies will have a competitive disadvantage (it costs more money).

MikeB said: IMO being more social is good. Having a big country like the US acting anti-social, like it was in the past is very bad. For example if you allow companies to polute more than in other countries, this drags down the global standard. As companies in better more environment aware societies will have a competitive disadvantage (it costs more money).

 

Except for the fact that capatalist democracies tend to have a much better environmental record than any other governmental system ...

HappySqurriel said: MikeB said: IMO being more social is good. Having a big country like the US acting anti-social, like it was in the past is very bad. For example if you allow companies to polute more than in other countries, this drags down the global standard. As companies in better more environment aware societies will have a competitive disadvantage (it costs more money).   Except for the fact that capatalist democracies tend to have a much better environmental record than any other governmental system ...

 

 Yeah, like capiyalist democracies with their factories' smokestacks pumping millions of cancer causing and o-zone destroying agents into the air are much better for the environment than hunter-gatherer societies.

BTFeather55 said: HappySqurriel said: MikeB said: IMO being more social is good. Having a big country like the US acting anti-social, like it was in the past is very bad. For example if you allow companies to polute more than in other countries, this drags down the global standard. As companies in better more environment aware societies will have a competitive disadvantage (it costs more money).   Except for the fact that capatalist democracies tend to have a much better environmental record than any other governmental system ...   Yeah, like capiyalist democracies with their factories' smokestacks pumping millions of cancer causing and o-zone destroying agents into the air are much better for the environment than hunter-gatherer societies.

 

The difference between your two examples is far greater than being a government difference ...

Edit: On top of that, I suspect that if you had 6 Billion people burning wood to keep warm you would have an unreal level of air polution ...

@ HappySqurriel

That's not true, the US per capita is one of the most poluting countries in the world (maybe some small country like Australia was able to beat them per capita). In absolute figures the US is the most poluting country in the world by far, even beating China with about 5 times as many people.

IMO the best performing countries, show rather a combination of democratic, capatalist and social trades, like many European countries. You can have a country which advocates being competitive, social and is democratic.

For example Switzerland and Sweden generate about 3 to 4 times the wealth the US does per tonne of CO2 emitted. The EU while representing hundreds of millions more people generates less than half the pollution the USA generates.

But the EU could perform much better as well, if not for the US allowing US companies to pollute so much (which is cheaper and thus provides a competitive advantage).

MikeB said: @ HappySqurriel Except for the fact that capatalist democracies tend to have a much better environmental record than any other governmental system ... That's not true, the US per capita is one of the most poluting countries in the world (maybe some small country like Australia was able to beat them per capita). In absolute figures the US is the most poluting country in the world by far, even beating China with about 5 times as many people. IMO the best performing countries, show rather a combination of democratic, capatalist and social trades, like many European countries. You can have a country which advocates being competitive, social and is democratic. For example Switzerland and Sweden generate about 3 to 4 times the wealth the US does per tonne of CO2 emitted. The EU while representing hundreds of millions more people generates less than half the pollution the USA generates. But the EU could perform much better as well, if not for the US allowing US companies to pollute so much (which is cheaper and thus provides a competitive advantage).

And of course that's not counting all the war pollution. IMO especially US army's mass usage of depleted uranium radioactive waste as ammunition is shameful, the world will have to pay the toll for this for as long as the Earth will exist (billions of years).

 

MikeB said: @ HappySqurriel Except for the fact that capatalist democracies tend to have a much better environmental record than any other governmental system ... That's not true, the US per capita is one of the most poluting countries in the world (maybe some small country like Australia was able to beat them per capita). In absolute figures the US is the most poluting country in the world by far, even beating China with about 5 times as many people. IMO the best performing countries, show rather a combination of democratic, capatalist and social trades, like many European countries. You can have a country which advocates being competitive, social and is democratic. For example Switzerland and Sweden generate about 3 to 4 times the wealth the US does per tonne of CO2 emitted. The EU while representing hundreds of millions more people generates less than half the pollution the USA generates. But the EU could perform much better as well, if not for the US allowing US companies to pollute so much (which is cheaper and thus provides a competitive advantage).

 

So European countries aren't capatalist democracies?

Now, a few things first ... Per Capita CO2 output is an awful metric because it doesn't take into conderation the vast differences that can exist in terms of per-capita productivity; in terms of GDP to Carbon Dioxide the awful United States produces about 5 times as much wealth per ton of CO2 than China, Russia, and India ... and very few Countries produce more than double the wealth per ton of CO2 that the US does ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions )

On top of that, measuring CO2 based on countries borders is remarkably dishonest ... A large portion of the reason why countries are able to massively reduce their CO2 output is by off-shoring their heavy manufacturing to another country. People in Europe are still buying TVs even though they are now being produced in China under few/no environmental regulations.

Thirdly, many of the best GDP to CO2 countires around the world are facing a more massive financial crisis in a large part because of how artificially inflated their economy was due to poor banking practices ... The ratios that the EU currently have will tumble dramatically while I bet that Canada's ratios will remaing remarkably stable.

Finally, CO2 is not a polutant ... No one has proven the Global Warming theory, and popularity doesn't make a theory true ...

BTFeather55 said: @kazs615 there is a reason why those Republicans give to those charities and that is because they get to write those donations off on their tax returns. we had eight years of republicanism and conservatism under Reagan and there is a reason most of the poor and the african american community consider him to be the worst president ever just as there is with Bush and his eight years of helping out his daddy's friends to get richer and trying to fight his daddy's wars, plus trying to make it impossible to be able to sue doctors while not caring if african americans and lower class citizens sank or swam unless they were willing to go be expendable in an ill-funded 'cause that would cut into the net profits going to Cheney's Haliburton war for oil.

The Gini Coeefficent under George W Bush did not change.

The Gini Coeefficenet = the division of wealth in the country.

So no.  The rich did not get richer under Bush.

You know who the Gini Coeeficient rised fastest on in recent history.

Bill Clinton.

Once again.  Look at the hard facts.  Not what some partisian tells you.

Now I thought Clinton was a lot better then Bush... however when it comes to division of wealth.  Clinton was good for the rich.  Bush wasn't.

 

HappySqurriel said: MikeB said: @ HappySqurriel Except for the fact that capatalist democracies tend to have a much better environmental record than any other governmental system ... That's not true, the US per capita is one of the most poluting countries in the world (maybe some small country like Australia was able to beat them per capita). In absolute figures the US is the most poluting country in the world by far, even beating China with about 5 times as many people. IMO the best performing countries, show rather a combination of democratic, capatalist and social trades, like many European countries. You can have a country which advocates being competitive, social and is democratic. For example Switzerland and Sweden generate about 3 to 4 times the wealth the US does per tonne of CO2 emitted. The EU while representing hundreds of millions more people generates less than half the pollution the USA generates. But the EU could perform much better as well, if not for the US allowing US companies to pollute so much (which is cheaper and thus provides a competitive advantage).   So European countries aren't capatalist democracies? Now, a few things first ... Per Capita CO2 output is an awful metric because it doesn't take into conderation the vast differences that can exist in terms of per-capita productivity; in terms of GDP to Carbon Dioxide the awful United States produces about 5 times as much wealth per ton of CO2 than China, Russia, and India ... and very few Countries produce more than double the wealth per ton of CO2 that the US does ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions ) On top of that, measuring CO2 based on countries borders is remarkably dishonest ... A large portion of the reason why countries are able to massively reduce their CO2 output is by off-shoring their heavy manufacturing to another country. People in Europe are still buying TVs even though they are now being produced in China under few/no environmental regulations. Thirdly, many of the best GDP to CO2 countires around the world are facing a more massive financial crisis in a large part because of how artificially inflated their economy was due to poor banking practices ... The ratios that the EU currently have will tumble dramatically while I bet that Canada's ratios will remaing remarkably stable. Finally, CO2 is not a polutant ... No one has proven the Global Warming theory, and popularity doesn't make a theory true ...

For over 10,000 years Antartica has been covered in ice.  It wasn't until the late 20th century when all these pollutants began to be pumped into the air and the o-zone began to grow that Antartica's glaciers started to melt.