^implying that patriotism and propaganda and a lack of university opportunities do not have an influence on that decision.

Obviously that never enters into the equation.  And its certainly not true that demographically a much larger perecentage of those with low incomes join the military than those with higher incomes.

The poor have fought rich people's wars since the beginning of civilization.  If anyone really thinks it is different now, they are fooling themselves.

It's one of the only places a totally unskilled worker can earn an income AND get the training needed to perform there duties.

I was born poor, worked my way though collage, and never had to join the military to do it. If you chose to, great, but saying it's the only option is misleading at best.

Since 1980.

That would be the problem though... science isn't working.  It's not the continiual seeking of truth in this case.  It's the continual changing of models and even data to prove the hypothisis that something is man made to push an agenda by frightening people.

It's basically the same as "If this happens the terrorists win."

If you have a good argument for why something should be done you shouldn't need to lie to people to accomplish your goals.

I am saying that I am suprised that you think it's OK given the fact that it's a regressive tax that will hurt the poor more. I think it's bad on both ends, but will hurt the poor more. I was showing you the frivility of the argument that the Cap & Trade is a good tax.

I support a fair, very low, tax that is as minimally intrusive as possible. I am for a fair tax, because I know that if it was instituted, the tax rate would not damage the poor anymore than the progressive tax system does today, because more income would be collected from those that seek to evade their civic duty of taxes. 

A fiscal conservative is willing to raise taxes to pay down debt, but a paleoconservative knows that taxes are already high, and that raising them only invokes more servitude on the part of the populous. You would not have to raise taxes to pay off the debt if the govenment ended half of the token programs it currently involves itself in. I wouldn't have a problem with the government raising taxes if taxes were at a fair rate. However, they are not, so I am against what's currently involved in the taxation of the American public.

Here's what I am for, when it comes to national debt (and this is entirely off-topic, BTW) and taxation:

- Reduce federal spending from $3.5 trillion dollars a year to <$2.0 trillion/yr, which would allow us to run a surplus very soon.

- Dissolve the unfair income tax that steals the average workers money, while doesn't touch the rich

- Institute new tax laws & regulations that close loopholes for the rich, who have much better accountants that can get away with far more than the poor or middle class have. Ensure that everyone pays their taxes.

- Once the debt is paid down, and we are in a better fiscal position, lower taxes.

I am not for immediately lowering taxes. I am for reducing spending first (the cause of our debt), chopping income tax (hurting the poor/middle class), closing loopholes (giving the rich an unfair advantage), and then, and only then lowering taxes once everything else has been taken care of. Please get that through your head. The government spends far more than it makes, and it's like a retard in a candy store with no money. It takes and spends what it does not have. I have enough money and fiscal sense to know that you cannot build a proper nation on that notion.

You, on the other hand, think that raising taxes will magically solve the problem. I can assure you that it will not. Raising taxes will only hurt the people while the government finds more of a reason to spend what it makes. The thing I've learned from being around the kind of people I know that are poor become that way when they spend themselves into poverty. You can make a million dollars a year and still be broke if you have too many debts. And that, sadly, is our government at the moment. As Mafoo has shown in other threads, no matter what has been done, the government collects about 21% of our GDP as taxes, regardless of administration, or tax rate. It's like being on a fixed income: If there's no way to make more money, you learn to spend less. I will reiterate: I am not for lowering taxes first. That's the last step of getting out of debt.

For the record, my family is in poverty. They are about ready to go bankrupt. I have never held a job that's paid over $30,000/yr pre-tax. I have had to help them, as well as friends that has contributed to me giving away thousands upon thousands of dollars to those around me that are needy, ranging from the homeless guy on the side of the road, to friends that were going to go bankrupt if not for my intervention. Despite all of that (as I've said prior), I've managed to claw my way to a bank account with $50,000 and 3 houses totalling a value of >$300,000. This is a turnaround from having $10,000 of debt when I was 18 years old. I learned that you have to work smart, spend less, and live within your means reap a profit. Maybe it's just my perspective of poverty that makes me view government this way, but when I see people arguing higher taxes when we have a smathering of social spending by the feds that could be cut, I think that we're looking at it from the wrong end of the glass.

Same with Michigan. We are already screwed.

What's the reason for some states being particularly screwed by the cap and trade program?

Cause they produce coal.

@ stickball:

That's totally fair, but there is no way to address the national debt unless the problem is addressed on both fronts. We have to substantially raise taxes and substantially cut spending. That is all I am saying. And I don't think there is really any argument that can be made for an alternative considering the size of our national debt.

And I agree with you that people in government are too willing to spend money they don't have (both Democrats and Republicans). But it is also true that some are willing to cut taxes even while we are running major deficits. Sometimes it is justified (like under Reagan, though even Reagan raised a lot taxes a few years later, but don't tell conservatives that), and sometimes it is not (Bush Jr. for instance).

For the most part, the spending situation should be addressed in this order

1) Entitlements (especially Medicare, the Social Security problem is actually much easier to fix)
2) Military Spending
3) Revamping the tax code
4) Pet projects (farm subsidies comes to mind)
5) Overhauling government departments on many levels

But in all reality this country is so big that it really isn't realistic to expect the federal government to spend much less than $2.5-3 trillion considering that the population grows yearly, and when you consider natural inflation. I mean $1 trillion in 1975 (which we were already spending) would be around $4 trillion in today's dollars.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

What cost $1000000000000 in 1975 would cost $3959022166696.21 in 2008.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2008 and 1975,
they would cost you $1000000000000 and $240317097222.62 respectively.

Do you want to do another calculation?

But you know what one of the biggest differences between then and now was? Tax rates.

Are there any estimates of how much coal production will have decrease when the cap and trade program is implemented?