Patrick, Don't try to throw your guilt my direction. We all make our own decisions. I can honestly say, that situation has never been an issue for me. Then again, I wasn't trying to use a busy border crossing to do whatever.
I once transported a Fiero to somewhere in N. Dakota (I think) headed to a Canadian buyer. In that I didn't know the seller nor the buyer, I only agreed to get it to the border because, I didn't know what else might be hidden in the car. I did do an inspection of the car but, I'm not equipped or qualified to look for illegal contraband. One never knows until that dog alerts. As it turned out, the car was apparently clean but, I wasn't willing to take the chance. You see, I respect and follow the law.
Cut the crap, Ron. If you were crossing an international border, and the border agent tells you to continue on your way... are you suggesting that you'd pull over, against the border agent's explicit instructions, and go inside and insist on paying taxes and duties when you were clearly instructed not to do so? You're either full of sh!t, or a full blown retard... or both.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-04-2025).]
Mocking each other's political beliefs is acceptable/standard practice in political forums. However, when accusations of personal impropriety are repeatedly being made, such as lying, cheating, and smuggling at border crossings... then a line has been crossed. Go shag yourself, Ron.
When I used to cross the border to bring back online stuff that I bought in the States and had shipped to a US address, it was standard practice for the Canadian border agents out here to just waive people through the crossing with no taxes/duty if the total dollar amount was below two hundred dollars. Otherwise, I suppose the paperwork at this very busy border crossing would've been prohibitive for the staff there. This reminds me of a thread Here from twelve years ago where dipsh!t banned member Furgal accused me of lying, cheating and smuggling. Geez that guy was a total dick.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Well, based on your own description, he may have been right. Knowingly taking advantage of a busy border crossing.............. Not an accusation just going on what you posted. I wasn't there so, I wouldn't know.
Rams
Just as police officers can choose to let a speeder off with a warning, so to can border officers choose to not apply taxes/duties, nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with intentionally choosing a busier crossing knowing the taxable amount is higher. By law, the exemption limit (no tax) is about $20 per person, depending on what it is, the border officers know most of the rules, and if they choose to wave you through, that's within their authority to do. All we are required to do is accurately report the value and nature of imports, the border officers are the ones who decide how much tax if any to charge, just like in a traffic stop, you're required to provide license/registration/insurance, and comply with the officer, if the officer decides to let you off with a warning, or whatever, that's the officer's authority, and has nothing to do with you.
Just as police officers can choose to let a speeder off with a warning, so to can border officers choose to not apply taxes/duties, nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with intentionally choosing a busier crossing knowing the taxable amount is higher. By law, the exemption limit (no tax) is about $20 per person, depending on what it is, the border officers know most of the rules, and if they choose to wave you through, that's within their authority to do. All we are required to do is accurately report the value and nature of imports, the border officers are the ones who decide how much tax if any to charge, just like in a traffic stop, you're required to provide license/registration/insurance, and comply with the officer, if the officer decides to let you off with a warning, or whatever, that's the officer's authority, and has nothing to do with you.
Understood, was just going with what Patrick admitted to. Not my call. Thanks for posting.
Mocking each other's political beliefs is acceptable/standard practice in political forums. However, when accusations of personal impropriety are repeatedly being made, such as lying, cheating, and smuggling at border crossings... then a line has been crossed. Go shag yourself, Ron.
Accusations? Was only going with what you admitted.
I will always remember your post. Arguing in P&R is half the fun. My post was not an argument in any way, it was only going with what you presented. IF, that upsets you, then there's only one person to blame and, it's not me.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-04-2025).]
...and nothing wrong with intentionally choosing a busier crossing
Thanks, I appreciate your post. However, just to clear up a possible misconception... I always tried to cross the border at the least busiest time of day/week, as I do not enjoy sitting in a border lineup. I was often able to drive right up to the border agent's booth, without waiting in line at all. The standard questions would be asked, including if I had anything to declare. For expediency, I would always have printed out copies of all my receipts (from eBay purchases, etc), and I would show the border agent any/all paperwork. Whenever the amount was under $200, I'd be waived through... just like everybody else who uses the local border crossings here in the Lower Mainland of BC. According to one misguided individual, I guess that makes us all lying cheating smugglers.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Believing that they will consistently spur American business ignores how they've performed int he past.
How they performed in the past ? My, you carry pretty intelligent mice in your pocket. Maybe they can enlighten me as to how tariffs performed in the past. If they have the time, maybe they can tell me how they don't spur American businesses.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: If you are asking me, I would say neither. I accept that there are basic human needs we can ensure do not go unmet, and have a human moral obligation to do so. At the same time, I believe that all taxation is theft and is immoral; as with almost everything you're left balancing "gonna have to steal" vs "gonna have to let babies starve."
Ahh, the "think of the children / babies" guilt trip. Yawn. Children nor babies starve. Many are over weight. Are you trying to legislate morality ? Human moral obligation ? America is the most generous nation on the planet. Within and beyond our borders. Are you suggesting we feed the planet ?
My Wife's and my moral obligation is met through the Church, as well as a few choice charities we have. Tax my sitting wealth ? I can spend money more wisely than the government.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Sometimes you don't get to NOT choose. In my mind, taxation from amassed, generational wealth has much less market distortion than taxing productive individuals, and encourages meritocracy. I'd target that pool with much higher taxes while reducing the tax burden on the productive classes.
Do your mice educate you ? Don't get to choose ? Do you mean I have no choice ? Productive individuals / classes. Heh. Care to define that ?
Originally posted by RandomTask: Because no-one was traveling. You remember this little thing called "covid"? Energy production is up under Biden and we have -more- energy independence. So you're championing Trump for energy independence, surely you're championing the Biden admin for providing -more- independence, right?
I remember the Kung Flu. Believe me, open your eyes, use your gray matter and common sense. Riddle me this. What did Biden do to increase oil production ?
Oil production is not like flipping a light switch. My vocation was working the oil fields on a drilling rig. Forty years. Production naturally goes up with the price of fuel more expensive. Let's go Brandon.
quote
Originally posted by RandomTask: Because that pipeline was for oil to get exported.
Yeah, right, . Your oil field experience is what ? That was mostly Canadian oil. From tar sands. The Canadians lack in refining ability. Canada has ocean ports. They did not need to send it here to export. What is your problem with it getting exported ?
Gee, the argument during the Obama administration was "the environment". That butt hole killed a lot of high paying jobs. Which Biden did also, on day one. The oil still came in by Warren Buffet's railroad.
quote
Originally posted by RandomTask: Because no-one was buying gas. . . Remember COVID? Pretty sure you don't have to do a stimulus if the economy was as ripping as Trump supporters claim.
Who are you trying to kid ? Remember the Kung Flu ? Remember that the government would not let anyone go to work ? Or Church ? Or School ? The stimulus was because the government would not let people make money.
Originally posted by NewDustin: If I stress a tax base in a way that does not increase my revenues, I'm engaging in the moral wrongdoing of taxing without reaping the benefits of preventing childhood starvation (from the example).
Again with "think of the children", ? Think of the homeless.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm not going to "make the Global Warming argument." The consensus on it is as overwhelming as the consensus that the Earth is round, and I'm also not planning to argue that the planet isn't flat. If the overwhelming evidence and near unanimous consensus are not going to convince you, no facts or reality I can bring to your attention will either. There's a link I posted just above there that addresses that.
My my, your mice failed you in educating you about Global Warming. I would love that debate.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I didn't suggest we hamstring fossil fuels, but the only alternative is not drilling more.
Yeah, that won't hamstring fossil fuels, . Do you even know what the United States contribution to the amount of "green house gasses produced world wide ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I see a conspicuous lack of nuclear energy being mentioned in your reply. Why is the push not to build a path to an actually sustainable, reliable energy source?
I have radioactive phobia. Did you know we still have nowhere to store used radioactive spent fuel ?
Originally posted by NewDustin: I didn't say "tax the wealthy" and I didn't advocate taxing high income earners or high corporate profits. I said to tax the money that is sitting because it is not being used to drive the economy as effectively as the money that is being taxed by income taxes and tariffs.
Oh yeah, you do not believe the trickle down theory except if it trickles down from the government which taxes.
So, where's the line, how's that going to affect millions of retirement savings accounts. My extra money (over the years) was saved and or invested in different places. Are you telling me the money that those investments have earned are going to be taxed before I even get to retirement or are at the point of needing it?
Additionally, it's my understanding that the earnings of those retirement accounts isn't just sitting there, it's utilized in the investment opportunities and companies one invested in. There are very few things in life that are no risk. Personally, I see the plan you seem to be endorsing as just another attempt to take more money from those who earned it and put into the government's coffers. It's painfully obvious, the government is horrible at taking care of "our" money. How about we simply reduce the cost of government by making it more efficient and cutting give away programs. Rams
Again, I agree that all taxation is theft. I also agree it would not be free to tax that money, and that we should reduce expenditures. I'm not arguing for increasing taxes, I'm arguing that if you ARE going to increase them then there are better ways then levying tariffs that impact key industries.
I'm also not talking about directly targeting retirement vehicles, like IRAs or 401ks.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
What the hell is an equity grant ? Equity is earned. What the hell are unrealized capital gains ?
Stock in the company given as non-cash compensation. For many of the tech jobs you see with outlandish compensation, the majority of that is in equity grants. Very often that money just sits in an account gaining interest. The interest that money gains ins't taxed until it is transacted. By taxing it while it sits (at least in unprotected investment vehicles) you incentivize returning that money to the economy.
Again, I am not suggesting we tax that money, just that it would make more sense than tariffs or increased income taxes.
Originally posted by cliffw: How they performed in the past ? My, you carry pretty intelligent mice in your pocket. Maybe they can enlighten me as to how tariffs performed in the past. If they have the time, maybe they can tell me how they don't spur American businesses.
Didn't you read? The mice bit me and I pinched 'em then they was dead. I wisht we'd get the rabbits pretty soon.
They wouldn't be a good source anyway. You can hit up the CBO or National Bureau of Economic Research, or even read what Paul Krugman has written. The Peterson Institute has good writings on it, and so do the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Trade Representative Reports. You could also google the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, or pick up just about any issue of Bloomberg -there's a roughly 70% chance they'll be digging into tariffs again on any given issue.
That tariffs have a cost to the economy is well established.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Ahh, the "think of the children / babies" guilt trip. Yawn. Children nor babies starve. Many are over weight. Are you trying to legislate morality ? Human moral obligation ? America is the most generous nation on the planet. Within and beyond our borders. Are you suggesting we feed the planet ?
My Wife's and my moral obligation is met through the Church, as well as a few choice charities we have. Tax my sitting wealth ? I can spend money more wisely than the government.
I think you are missing my point as well, and misunderstanding which side of this debate you are on. By supporting tariffs you are advocating a tax increase. I am saying if you all want to increase taxes there are better ways to do it. I am arguing that the current tax increases -that you support- are poorly conceived.
Depending on your church, a small portion of that money will be used for charitable giving. The vast majority will be re-invested into the church and it's community; tithing is an extremely inefficient way to donate to charity.
I'm also not saying "think of the children." Unless you are an advocate of a stateless society (which would be AWESOME to talk about, btw) you accept the need for funding the government, and I would assume, by extension some taxation. The reason children don't starve in the U.S. because of taxation; that is an argument in favor of what I am saying. Again, I am not saying we should be taxed MORE; that is the stance you have taken by supporting tariffs. I'm simply giving you my rationale behind why any level taxation is tolerable at all. To be clear: If I were in control I would dramatically lower overall taxes, starting with tariffs and income taxes.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Do your mice educate you ? Don't get to choose ? Do you mean I have no choice ? Productive individuals / classes. Heh. Care to define that ?
No, my formal economic education came from the University of California, San Diego, but much more came from participation in economic discussion groups, and an almost-embarrassing amount came from the Mises reading list. A lot of my opinions on government coercion are developed off of 'The Foundations of Morality' (Hazlit should be part of every economic education).
I meant "income earners"; you are right I could have been more clear there.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: My my, your mice failed you in educating you about Global Warming. I would love that debate.
I was far more interested in politics and economics than I was in climatology. It was hard enough fitting in two majors, a third completely unrelated one would have ruined my weekends. That being said, if you have a compelling argument that 97% of people who have dedicated their lives to studying this are missing I'd love to hear it.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: I have radioactive phobia. Did you know we still have nowhere to store used radioactive spent fuel ?
I'm also not talking about directly targeting retirement vehicles, like IRAs or 401ks.
I totally read this wrong as I was getting ready to hit reply and sound off... and then re-read and saw the "NOT" in there.
So many people think we need to tax IRAs and 401ks. Mostly younger left-leaning people, and Democrat politicians. They have their Federal pensions (which you get, vested, literally after only one term)... but few people seem to consider who these are affecting. The radical left-leaning young people who think we need to target 401Ks and IRAs assume that any money in savings or retirement must mean they're wealthy. An old guy who's saved 1 million in a 401k over an entire lifetime isn't wealthy. If he never works another day in his life... that's good for him to have a modest lower-middle class income for the next 20 years of his life, assuming he already owns his home, and gets all the senior discounts.
Like... such a thing directly affects the middle class... not the wealthy, not the poor. And I might add... the ones who at least on paper are trying to be responsible about their retirement.
People really need to stop using the 97% claim... The "97% consensus" number is more or less BS. It's a contrived result based on the overly-generous reading of summaries and papers from a picked minority of the total number of scientists studying climate and/or climate-related phenomena at the time. That's not to say there isn't a consensus, but it's nowhere near that high, even some of the scientists whose papers and "conclusions" were used to arrive at that original, oft-quoted percentage spoke up and said their papers didn't say what the summary said they said, some even said that their research offered no opinion on climate effects. Read up on it again, 97% was a good number, showed near universal agreement that would convince the uninformed while looking like a realistic, believable estimate. A lot of people claim the 97%, but it's simply not accurate. A lot... possibly a majority do... but the 97% number is absolutely contrived and not at all scientific in nature. It literally used papers from various disciplines such as archeology, biology, meteorology, physics, etc., that in some way referenced the climate somewhere within, but largely had nothing to do with it. There's a lot debunking the use of the "97% scientists agree" number.
EDIT: Full disclosure, 60% of this response was pulled from an acquaintance who made a similar reply to someone else about the 97.3% study. About 40% of it is my own text.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-06-2025).]
Again, I agree that all taxation is theft. I also agree it would not be free to tax that money, and that we should reduce expenditures. I'm not arguing for increasing taxes, I'm arguing that if you ARE going to increase them then there are better ways then levying tariffs that impact key industries.
I'm also not talking about directly targeting retirement vehicles, like IRAs or 401ks.
SNIP
Again, I am not suggesting we tax that money, just that it would make more sense than tariffs or increased income taxes.
While, that may be your position, in general, that's not what the leadership of the Dem Party is projecting. It does appear to matter on who is talking and answering the questions though. It's my opinion that 97% of the Dem leadership don't really care about the middle class, it's all about buying votes with free money and benefits. Knowing that if I take my retirement out of the investments I've made, I'll have to pay taxes on the money earned and that is the way and reason those accounts were set up. Now, they (Dems) want to change the rules and tax my earnings that may be lost next year. Will the "government" then give my already tax funds back? No, the "government will continue to spend like a drunken sailor drinks. So, now I'm paying taxes on money I've never seen and risking losing it all while the government spends it.
Yeah, that seems fair to me, NOT!
I'm not particularly fond of Tariffs but, it's a tool and if you don't use the tools one has in the toolbox then why even have it. That tool is much like a sledgehammer, it's an attention getter IMHO.
I would like to see greater government efficiency and less spending on entitlement programs. It's not about getting or giving a free ride to those who won't pull their own weight.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-06-2025).]
While, that may be your position, in general, that's not what the leadership of the Dem Party is projecting. It does appear on who is talking and answering the questions though. It's my opinion that 97% of the Dem leadership don't really care about the middle class, it's all about buying votes with free money and benefits. Knowing that if I take my retirement out of the investments I've made, I'll have to pay taxes on the money earned and that is the way and reason those accounts were set up. Now, they (Dems) want to change the rules and tax my earnings that may be lost next year. Will the "government" then give my already tax funds back? No, the "government will continue to spend like a drunken sailor drinks. So, now I'm paying taxes on money I've never seen and risking losing it all while the government spends it.
Yeah, that seems fair to me, NOT!
I'm not particularly fond of Tariffs but, it's a tool and if you don't use the tools one has in the toolbox then why even have it. That tool is much like a sledgehammer, it's an attention getter IMHO.
I would like to see greater government efficiency and less spending on entitlement programs. It's not about getting or giving a free ride to those who won't pull their own weight.
Rams
I'm not talking about retirement accounts. I've said that. I'm also not a Democrat and don't support their party.
I agree that tariffs are a sledgehammer, and with how they've been threatened to be used "I'll smash myself in the face with this sledgehammer!" is absolutely an attention getter. I would just expect the voice of fiscal moderation in this country to go "well, maybe not ourselves, and maybe not in the face?" not "YEAH! BECAUSE WE'RE SUPER CONSERVATIVE BABY!"
I agree entirely on the efficiency, but why entitlement programs specifically; is there insufficient return on investment in those? And as a second question, what would you have done with those that "won't pull their own weight"?
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-06-2025).]
Not sure I want to waste my time digging through that study, but I'd hazard a guess to say that the 99.9% is probably more of the exact same thing they did to come up with 97.3%.
It's important to recognize that we're basing all of this off arbitrary data that concludes we've gained an average of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, and 4-5"s overall in sea-level rise within the past 100 years. Ignoring of course that the Pacific Ocean is higher than the Atlantic ocean, and the sea level has changed in some places, where-as in others it hasn't changed at all in 100 years...
The important thing we should consider though is all that's "pushed politically" based on information that likely sits within the margin of error.
In Math and science, we have something called a Sigmoid curve. It's often used to determine accuracy scoring in data.
Why this is important is because we've only been recording temperature (accurately) over the past 30-40 years. Before that, we have a tenuous, at best... means for recording information for another 100 years before that. It's largely inconsistent...
Yet, we are making assumptions on weather patterns and temperature averages based on ~150 years of a 4.5 billion year old planet.
To help you understand where we are on the Sigmoid curve of data accuracy and relevance... I've modified it below:
Why this is important is because the "trust the science" crowd uses every temperature extreme to indicate global warming. Well, they used to call it global warming, but then they called it climate change when we were also getting record lows during some winters.
The sigmoid curve is important to understand because effectively, we're going to be hitting records for billions of years until we've reached what essentially becomes an actual mean record high and record low... where every possible temperature has been recorded for every day in our calendar that can reach the extreme of what's possible under current Earth-like conditions.
What we also know, that never gets considered... is that we had serious drought in Europe during the 1200s... where temperatures became exceedingly hotter than any of the recorded temperatures (which are never used for comparison to the "records" that are broken every year in present time).
What's more, the "climate change" nomenclature now pushes the narrative that we are having more extreme weather events... which is a whole other bag of worms where the data is wildly misleading and totally misrepresented (let me know if you want me to get into it).
Every year, they say hurricanes are increasing because of global warming, but in fact... we've actually seen a slight decrease in hurricanes actually making landfall... (see chart). But, there are more people living on the shores, and thus more damage as a result, so they totally improperly say that global warming is causing more hurricanes (which it isn't).
There's the "trust the science" crowd... who parrots the 97.3% ratio... and then there's people who actually look at the science and read the actual papers being referenced.
I acknowledge that we've seen a 4-5" increase in sea level rise, acknowledge that we've seen a 1.4 degree temperature change over 100 years, and acknowledge the science behind carbon in the air and trapping heat. What I don't believe, is that it's even a modicum of the severity that people make it out to be. There's a lot of money to be made (from the government) in green subsidy... and fear sells.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-06-2025).]
Most of this is run-of-the-mill climate change denial, and has already been thoroughly addressed:
Reliable continuous regional temperature recordings date back to the 1600s. Global data sets start in the 1800s. That data has been corroborated and expanded on with ice core data and other sources.
The variation in sea level rise doesn’t alter the fact that average levels have risen in a measurable trend.
The Medieval Warm Period was a regional, not global, phenomenon.
The number of hurricanes making landfall has not increased, but their intensity has.
‘Climate change’ is a blanket term that has always encompassed ‘global warming.’
The scientific consensus on global warming is based on peer-reviewed research from global institutions. There is a ton money pouring in from the fossil fuel industry expressly targeted at funding misinformation in their favor that you are ignoring.
The Sigmoid Curve one is novel. It doesn't pan out because climate data isn't represented by a Sigmoid Function: it has no predetermined limits and has outside mechanisms influencing it. It might superficially resemble one at a passing glance (until you notice the ends don't flatten), but that doesn’t mean all the same mathematical limitations apply.
I'm not talking about retirement accounts. I've said that. I'm also not a Democrat and don't support their party.
I agree that tariffs are a sledgehammer, and with how they've been threatened to be used "I'll smash myself in the face with this sledgehammer!" is absolutely an attention getter. I would just expect the voice of fiscal moderation in this country to go "well, maybe not ourselves, and maybe not in the face?" not "YEAH! BECAUSE WE'RE SUPER CONSERVATIVE BABY!"
I agree entirely on the efficiency, but why entitlement programs specifically; is there insufficient return on investment in those? And as a second question, what would you have done with those that "won't pull their own weight"?
Entitlements? Well, based on my own personal experiences, way too many are living off the government tit and not even trying to pull their own weight. Once they figure out how to work the system, there they stay. There are those that can't pull their own weight and I recognize that exists. But those that won't pull their own weight and could will either get real hungry or find a way to earn such benefits. Give away programs generally are meant to buy votes and are paid for by those who are pulling their own weight.
Yeah, I'm a hard ass who has always earned my way and never pulled from one of those entitlement programs although, I do have distant relatives who are experts at getting freebies.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
When I used to cross the border to bring back online stuff that I bought in the States and had shipped to a US address, it was standard practice for the Canadian border agents out here to just waive people through the crossing with no taxes/duty if the total dollar amount was below two hundred dollars. Otherwise, I suppose the paperwork at this very busy border crossing would've been prohibitive for the staff there. This reminds me of a thread Here from twelve years ago where dipsh!t banned member Furgal accused me of lying, cheating and smuggling. Geez that guy was a total dick.
How is Canada supposed to pay for your "free" healthcare when people like you evade taxes?
Most of this is run-of-the-mill climate change denial, and has already been thoroughly addressed:
Reliable continuous regional temperature recordings date back to the 1600s. Global data sets start in the 1800s. That data has been corroborated and expanded on with ice core data and other sources.
The variation in sea level rise doesn’t alter the fact that average levels have risen in a measurable trend.
The Medieval Warm Period was a regional, not global, phenomenon.
The number of hurricanes making landfall has not increased, but their intensity has.
‘Climate change’ is a blanket term that has always encompassed ‘global warming.’
The scientific consensus on global warming is based on peer-reviewed research from global institutions. There is a ton money pouring in from the fossil fuel industry expressly targeted at funding misinformation in their favor that you are ignoring.
The Sigmoid Curve one is novel. It doesn't pan out because climate data isn't represented by a Sigmoid Function: it has no predetermined limits and has outside mechanisms influencing it. It might superficially resemble one at a passing glance (until you notice the ends don't flatten), but that doesn’t mean all the same mathematical limitations apply.
But it does... it's entirely applicable. There's a max and a min that realistically during all normal cycles of the earth, that we would expect to see temperatures. It's novel because no one else is saying it... it's my understanding of how you evaluate a minuscule amount of data on something that has a billion times more data associated. We obviously don't count comets eradicating most of the surface... but the only relevant data we can use is actually since the 1870s (not 1800 like you say). And that isn't really valid because it was also regional and reported by farmers. Doesn't mean we should discount it... but understand, you're pushing a narrative that the world is going to end (not in those words) off a mere 1.4 degree increase in the past 100 years. 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit is the number that's being pushed. Understand how insignificant that is... it's well within the margin of error to any mathematical accuracy we apply to it.
What I would like to see, is using Fourier analysis ... which is often referred to as a "sliding window" metric. It looks at small data sets within the larger data set to more accurately determine relevance to something, or the accuracy of the data you're comparing it to. All that said though, we'd still need the larger data set to compare.
There is nothing else in our society where we put so much emphasis on a nearly insignificant amount of data set...
Stock in the company given as non-cash compensation. For many of the tech jobs you see with outlandish compensation, the majority of that is in equity grants. Very often that money just sits in an account gaining interest. The interest that money gains ins't taxed until it is transacted. By taxing it while it sits (at least in unprotected investment vehicles) you incentivize returning that money to the economy.
Outlandish compensation ? Do you take envy pills daily ? Stock very well could be a cash losing compensation. Who is the Government to decide if a stock is a winner or a loser ? If a stock bottoms out, does a stock holder get a refund or income tax credit for the money taken from them under the guise of a tax ?
Sheesh. People build equity from property purchases. I guess I am guilty from not paying my fair share of taxes also. Do you want a new alphabet government agency which determines the gains in property values ?
I might agree, that a stock compensation should be taxed at the going rate at the time given. Might. The interests it gains ? Never. Perhaps, if the government also pays a loss.
Most of this is run-of-the-mill climate change denial, and has already been thoroughly addressed:
Reliable continuous regional temperature recordings date back to the 1600s. Global data sets start in the 1800s. That data has been corroborated and expanded on with ice core data and other sources.
Reliable ? Was it corroborated when there were no ice core sources ? Where were the ice core sources located ? Regional temperature recordings in the 1600's ? I was not born last night.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
The variation in sea level rise doesn’t alter the fact that average levels have risen in a measurable trend.
How much ? That's a fascinating claim. Do you have data to support it ? From the 1600's ? If so, so what ? Explain to us how sea level rises. Sea level is sea level. There is such a thing as high tide. Also low tide. What is the measurement of the claimed rise ? You said it was measurable.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
The Medieval Warm Period was a regional, not global, phenomenon.
Weather has no boundaries. Why did one or some regions warm up and not the others ? I have never ever seen any weather data from the medieval period. Correct me if I am wrong ... during the medieval period wasn't most of the rest of the world uninhabited ? Where is that weather data ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
The number of hurricanes making landfall has not increased, but their intensity has.
You can't know that. Prove it. Think of the tornadoes. And the floods. And the droughts. Think of the starving babies. Did you know that even our finances are affected by Global Warming, ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
‘Climate change’ is a blanket term that has always encompassed ‘global warming.’
Do you know why they changed the name Global Warming to Climate change ? I do.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
The scientific consensus on global warming is based on peer-reviewed research from global institutions. There is a ton money pouring in from the fossil fuel industry expressly targeted at funding misinformation in their favor that you are ignoring.
Show us the misinformation ? Can you do that ? Scientific consensus, ? Oh my. There was a consensus by 51% of the intelligence community who said Hunter Biden's lap top was not real.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: The Sigmoid Curve one is novel. It doesn't pan out because climate data isn't represented by a Sigmoid Function: it has no predetermined limits and has outside mechanisms influencing it. It might superficially resemble one at a passing glance (until you notice the ends don't flatten), but that doesn’t mean all the same mathematical limitations apply.
You will be hearing from me why the Global Warming is bullzhit. Talk about misinformation. You do know your using run of the mill Global Warming arguments, no ?
Outlandish compensation ? Do you take envy pills daily ? Stock very well could be a cash losing compensation. Who is the Government to decide if a stock is a winner or a loser ? If a stock bottoms out, does a stock holder get a refund or income tax credit for the money taken from them under the guise of a tax ?
Sheesh. People build equity from property purchases. I guess I am guilty from not paying my fair share of taxes also. Do you want a new alphabet government agency which determines the gains in property values ?
I might agree, that a stock compensation should be taxed at the going rate at the time given. Might. The interests it gains ? Never. Perhaps, if the government also pays a loss.
I am paid partially in equity grants, which is why I know what they are and have had reason/opportunity to ponder them. I imagine envy pills are green, though, and taste like sour apple.
I am not saying people with equity or property are not paying their fair share. This has nothing to do with "fair," and I've already said I don't think there is anything fair about taxing people from the get go. I am saying that ANY TAXATION AT ALL is theft. If you have to steal for a purpose (whatever that purpose is) it would be even more morally wrong to 1) steal more than you need and 2) steal from an inefficient/ineffective source. I used the carpenters tools-vs-money in the mattress to represent that earlier.
I feel that we already steal too much, that we steal from inefficient sources, and we spend the proceeds of our theft inefficiently. Tariffs are a proposal to steal even more, and in an extremely economically damaging way, which I think makes them a poor an expensive tool for diplomacy.
To put it bluntly: Don't threaten to steal from me to put one over on China, that's just dumb. If you are going to steal from me, make damn sure you need to steal from me, then take the money that I'm not driving into the economy and that I don't rely on for my day-to-day existence.
Originally posted by cliffw: You will be hearing from me why the Global Warming is bullzhit. Talk about misinformation. You do know your using run of the mill Global Warming arguments, no ?
You could copy paste any of those questions directly into Google and get thousands of well-sourced, easily-understandable answers that would do exactly as good of a job as I would. I do know these are consensus arguments. That's what's great about having the backing of an overwhelming scientific consensus: You have access to a wealth of well-reasoned, thoroughly-vetted information.
Originally posted by blackrams: Entitlements? Well, based on my own personal experiences, way too many are living off the government tit and not even trying to pull their own weight. Once they figure out how to work the system, there they stay.
Is your issue with it more ideological or practical? Would you support a hypothetical entitlement program if it were abused by some, but wildly successful at turning the majority of recipients into productive members of society?
I have been to Giggles for answers to my question. I was challenging you to go. You should go to Giggles and type in "why Global Warming is bullzhit". Tell me what you found out.
The consensus of 100% consensus on FaceSpace was that the Kung Flu was not a lab leak, nor was any ungovernmental treatment for it would work, that masks worked, six foot of separation would protect you and one could not go to work, attend Church, attend school, and on and on. On FaceSpace one could not go to a hair salon yet Nancy Pelosi did. The same with the Chicago mayor and she was still ugly. In Michigan, the Governor's husband was the only one allowed to take a go boating. The consensus was that the majority of US intelligence agents claimed the the Hunter Biden lap top was Russian disinformation.
The Global Warming hoax that 97% of scientists approved that Global Warming was a real phenomenon is also not true. Consensus my azz.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: But it does... it's entirely applicable. There's a max and a min that realistically during all normal cycles of the earth, that we would expect to see temperatures.
What is the natural upper limit representing a fixed cap for temperatures? What is the lower limit? How is the underlying function being modified to account for the changing limits -given that's kind of the whole point of measuring climate change? Without addressing those questions it does not seem to apply.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It's novel because no one else is saying it... it's my understanding of how you evaluate a minuscule amount of data on something that has a billion times more data associated. We obviously don't count comets eradicating most of the surface... but the only relevant data we can use is actually since the 1870s (not 1800 like you say). And that isn't really valid because it was also regional and reported by farmers.
I'm not sure where the misconception that there is a minuscule amount of data comes from. You can measure and corroborate from ice cores, sediment, tree rings growth, coral reef skeletons, cave deposits...there is a plethora of data sources and entire branches of science dedicated to studying them. It's not just regional data reported by contemporary farmers. Taken individually they may not make a compelling argument, but just because you focus on a minuscule amount of data it does not mean it exists in a vacuum or is all-encompassing. Taken together, the weight of the evidence is overwhelming. We don't need to abstract a non-applicable mathematical model to try to make it fit some narrative, we can just gather all the evidence, analyze it, and conclude from there.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Doesn't mean we should discount it... but understand, you're pushing a narrative that the world is going to end (not in those words) off a mere 1.4 degree increase in the past 100 years. 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit is the number that's being pushed. Understand how insignificant that is... it's well within the margin of error to any mathematical accuracy we apply to it.
A 1-2 degree change over hundreds of years is what triggered the ice ages and warming periods. The most recent Ice Age averaged 4-7 degrees cooler than it is now. You also misunderstand margin of error. The margin of error of temperature recordings over the last few decades is generally +/- 0.09 degrees F (1.4 degrees is 15x that). The margin of error on older measurements is generally +/-0.18 - 0.36 F (1.4 degrees is 4x the largest on these).
I am also not pushing a narrative that the world will end; I'm not sure where you got that but you seem to have just made it up.I think there are likely to be significant repercussions from a 1-2 degree temperature increase over a short period of time, but that doesn't mean I'm running around yelling the sky is falling. You are absolutely pushing the narrative that it's no big deal, though, and I don't see what you are using to back that up.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: What I would like to see, is using Fourier analysis ... which is often referred to as a "sliding window" metric. It looks at small data sets within the larger data set to more accurately determine relevance to something, or the accuracy of the data you're comparing it to. All that said though, we'd still need the larger data set to compare.
There is nothing else in our society where we put so much emphasis on a nearly insignificant amount of data set...
Again, though, we find ourselves agreeing. The depth of analysis that exists would not be able to exist without considerable, extensive data sets.
Here we are... you've managed to turn a thread about pardons into a long-drawn out thread about global warming, and a thread about Trudeau stepping down into a long drawn out discussion about COVID.
I checked some of the links, I can access it through Drexel so I have access to them. They aren't really saying what you think they're saying. I don't have any problems acknowledging a 1.4 degree temperature increase... what I'm arguing is that any of it even matters. You're basing what you say (that it leads to the end of the world) on leftist projections, misrepresentation, and exaggeration.
Respectfully... I guess I don't really need to care... for the next 4 years, the United States isn't going to kick itself in the balls. If you think the world is going to end, please join a Chinese message board and go to town. They're the ones directly responsible for the destruction of the ozone and global warming. The United States cannot be blamed because we buy things from them. The environmental damage caused by other countries isn't the fault of our consumerism... it's the corruption in those countries and their lack of care to protect their own environments.
There are so many other things that we need to be doing, global warming is so pathetically insignificant, but it's been used to mobilize radical leftists so that it can support wealth redistribution programs.
Man, I'm so glad President Trump won. I really hope he just outright stops giving money to other countries for all this retarded stuff. Day 1, we're gone from the Paris Accord, and I hope he pulls out of everything he can that holds us back.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Here we are... you've managed to turn a thread about pardons into a long-drawn out thread about global warming, and a thread about Trudeau stepping down into a long drawn out discussion about COVID.
If you'll go ahead and click back to the page previous to this one, you'll see that this turned into a Global Warming conversation at the near-insistence of Cliff (not that I'm complaining about his doing so). I even initially refused to engage in it. If you'll read back through the Trudeau thread, you'll find YOU are the one that turned the conversation to COVID, and that I've only replied to it as a topic in relation to it's budgetary implications, which is salient to the conversation we're having about Trudeau being replaced by a conservative. ...but yeah sure. I did it, and all by myself, and I would have gotten away with it too if wasn't for you meddling kids!
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I checked some of the links, I can access it through Drexel so I have access to them. They aren't really saying what you think they're saying. I don't have any problems acknowledging a 1.4 degree temperature increase... what I'm arguing is that any of it even matters. You're basing what you say (that it leads to the end of the world) on leftist projections, misrepresentation, and exaggeration.
What are they saying, what do I think they are saying, and how are the two different? Or is that just more nonsense you don't plan to back up in any way? What leftist source am I citing or relying on for my information?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Respectfully... I guess I don't really need to care... for the next 4 years, the United States isn't going to kick itself in the balls. If you think the world is going to end, please join a Chinese message board and go to town. They're the ones directly responsible for the destruction of the ozone and global warming. The United States cannot be blamed because we buy things from them. The environmental damage caused by other countries isn't the fault of our consumerism... it's the corruption in those countries and their lack of care to protect their own environments.
There are so many other things that we need to be doing, global warming is so pathetically insignificant, but it's been used to mobilize radical leftists so that it can support wealth redistribution programs.
Man, I'm so glad President Trump won. I really hope he just outright stops giving money to other countries for all this retarded stuff. Day 1, we're gone from the Paris Accord, and I hope he pulls out of everything he can that holds us back.
Again, I don't think the world is going to end. That feels like another wildly inaccurate thing you just made up because it's easier for you to compartmentalize differing viewpoints than address the weaknesses in your own stances. I don't doubt for a second you are glad and will support all sorts of leftist economic policies; the pants-shitting, chest-beating show you put on immediately following the election left little doubt.
What are they saying, what do I think they are saying, and how are the two different? Or is that just more nonsense you don't plan to back up in any way? What leftist source am I citing or relying on for my information? .
They're concurring on the science of carbon and trapping heat, as well as the slight increase in mean temperature. (I only bothered to read one, and skim the other)
None of which really makes much of a difference, since this really isn't the real problem facing our environment. There are so many other things that are more immediately catastrophic, like dumping chemicals in the river, the fact that most states have "fake" recycling programs in which almost everything ends up in the landfill anyway (see Whirlabator as a real solution), to coal plants, to the left's absolute manic fear of nuclear power, wetland destruction, rainforest destruction (and not just in Brazil), etc. These are real problems... not the 11% of emissions caused by automobiles around the world. It's 3rd world **** countries that are devastating the landscape, over-farming, and clearing land wholesale because their governments suck.
Is your issue with it more ideological or practical? Would you support a hypothetical entitlement program if it were abused by some, but wildly successful at turning the majority of recipients into productive members of society?
Wildly Successful Productive Members of Society who were on entitlement programs? Having never seen that, it's impossible for me to answer that. The proof is in the pudding, I have yet to see that. Got any examples?
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-10-2025).]
Originally posted by blackrams: Wildly Successful Productive Members of Society who were on entitlement programs? Having never seen that, it's impossible for me to answer that. The proof is in the pudding, I have yet to see that. Got any examples?
Rams
I did not mean "turning non-contributing members of society into wildly successful members'"; that'd be easy because a large portion of wildly successful people have used entitlements of some kind. Two easy examples who are open about it are Howard Schultz and JK Rowling.
I meant statistically successful at lifting large numbers of people out of poverty, adding them to the tax-paying workforce, and doing so in a cost-effective way. The example I have in mind is the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is an entitlement program specifically targeted at bringing people out of poverty. It costs $70 billion/year, but generates between $84-$140 billion a year in economic activity via added workforce and earned/spent wages. I feel like it's a very effective use of tax proceeds. Would you support policies like that?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: They're concurring on the science of carbon and trapping heat, as well as the slight increase in mean temperature. (I only bothered to read one, and skim the other)
You said you thought we should be using Fourier Analysis to look at patterns in climate change. I presented several examples where FA, and similar techniques, were already being widely used in climate research. I wasn't citing any of their particular findings; I was showing that methodology in use.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: None of which really makes much of a difference, since this really isn't the real problem facing our environment. There are so many other things that are more immediately catastrophic, like dumping chemicals in the river, the fact that most states have "fake" recycling programs in which almost everything ends up in the landfill anyway (see Whirlabator as a real solution), to coal plants, to the left's absolute manic fear of nuclear power, wetland destruction, rainforest destruction (and not just in Brazil), etc. These are real problems... not the 11% of emissions caused by automobiles around the world. It's 3rd world **** countries that are devastating the landscape, over-farming, and clearing land wholesale because their governments suck.
Outside of the bolded parts I agree with you 100%. I think climate change is a serious concern, but it absolutely overshadows many other also-serious environmental concerns. Our fear of nuclear power makes us a fossil fuel country, which is legitimately insane from any environmental perspective, and the left is absolutely the guilty party there. The regulations on US nuclear are designed to hamstring it as a viable energy source. It's the most pro-coal stance anyone could possibly take. Shutting down Yucca Mountain is one of the dumbest thing we have ever done.
? Oh my. There was a consensus by 51% of the intelligence community who said Hunter Biden's lap top was not real. 
