Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Of course, the greatest argument against Kyoto is simply that the U.S. doesn't need an international treaty to fix its problems, and therefore we are better off doing it on our own.

    I'm not sure if I read that right.

    Are you suggesting that the U.S. can solve the world's pollution problems all by itself, so why bother with getting others involved?
    • Are you suggesting that the U.S. can solve the world's pollution problems all by itself

      No, I thought it was clear "the U.S. ... fix its problems" referred to the U.S. pollution problems. Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.
      • Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm [usatoday.com]

        While the United States is cutting its own emissions, some nations, especially China, are belching out more and more dirty air. As a result, overseas pollution could partly cancel out improvements in U.S. air quality that have cost billions of dollars.

        So, is pollution that originates in other countries a problem that the U.S. would deal with?

        If so, on what basis? And how? You aren't

        • While the United States is cutting its own emissions, some nations, especially China, are belching out more and more dirty air.

          I hope you're not suggesting Kyoto is the answer to this problem, since Kyoto is law in China.

          So, is pollution that originates in other countries a problem that the U.S. would deal with?

          Through mutual agreements, perhaps, where they get something, we get something in return, and so on.

          It seems to me that in order to address pollution crossing the border from at least our two
          • I hope you're not suggesting Kyoto is the answer to this problem, since Kyoto is law in China.

            I believe Kyoto is the answer to to this problem like Bush's plan to fix Social Security is the answer to that problem.

            Something is needed, that doesn't mean that you can't actually make matters worse with your actions.

            I was under the impression that one of the biggest faults with the agreement was that there were not any mandatory limits for developing countries [pbs.org], like China.

            If that is the case, I'm not sure i
            • I believe Kyoto is the answer to to this problem like Bush's plan to fix Social Security is the answer to that problem.

              Bush has no plan to fix Social Security. Or at least, he never introduced any plan to the public, nor to the Congress.
              • That is true.

                Let's just consider what I said a "forward looking" statement. (Based on what he has put forth so far)

                Either way, I'm pretty sure you get my drift.
                • Well, there's two primary parts, meant to address two different problems.

                  The first, which most people say won't fix SS, is the personal accounts. What is true is that it won't fix SS *solvency* problems, which is a straw man, as it is not meant to (well, in truth, it could help prevent future solvency problems, as it will reduce the long-term liabilities at the same time it is reducing the revenues, making it easier to manage, but that's not really the point of it). It's meant to help fix the problem of SS being a raw deal for many people, by allowing them to opt out if they choose.

                  The second, which certainly will help fix SS solvency problems, is changing the benefits structure. To say this won't help fix SS is ridiculous, since it address the problem directly: as expenses overtake revenues, we reduce expenses.

                  What confuses a lot of people is that they see this big looming transition cost, but it's financially sound. You're not paying more, you're just paying it up front, instead of down the road, which actually means it costs less. A lot of people think it makes the whole thing cost more, which is just false. It just moves the costs up front. Of course, that sounds great -- and it is -- as long as we can find a way to pay for it up front, which so far no one's been able to do.
                  • Oops, didn't finish. Stupid Safari. Here's the rest:

                    The lack of plan to pay for the transition costs is one of my big reasons for, right now, disliking personal accounts. The other is that I am not convinced I will have substantial control over the money in those personal accounts. What is "ownership" without control?