What defines the "post-material economy" is a growing willingness to sacrifice money income for psychic income -- "feeling good." Some people may gladly pay higher energy prices if they think they're "saving the planet" from global warming. Some may accept higher taxes if they think they're improving the health or education of the poor. Unfortunately, these psychic benefits may be based on fantasies. What if U.S. cuts in greenhouse gases are offset by Chinese increases? What if more health insurance produces only modest gains in people's health?
Asked by Anonymous at 8:25 AM on Apr. 14, 2009 in Politics & Current Events
If we all believe what isn't IS, we will continue to feed the baby narcissists, as so many continue to believe that Obama is the second coming in the face of so much BS surrounding his actions and the actions of those around him.
See the emperor's new clothes?............
Answer by mustbeGRACE at 11:00 AM on Apr. 14, 2009
We cannot build a productive economy on the foundations of health care and "green" energy. These programs would create burdens for many, benefits for some. Indeed, their weaknesses may feed on each other, as higher health spending requires more taxes that are satisfied by stiffer terms for cap-and-trade. We clearly need changes in these areas: ways to check wasteful health spending and promote efficient energy use. I have long advocated a gasoline tax on national security grounds. But Obama's vision for economic renewal is mostly a self-serving mirage.
this post written by a liberal journalist for the washington post.
Answer by Anonymous at 8:27 AM on Apr. 14, 2009
I agree that many green initiatives are cost prohibitive. I don't feel that this is the right time to introduce cap and trade (if at all), after all it will be the lower and middle class that struggle the most with these fees / increases in rates and taxes. Aren't those the people he vowed to be helping? I guess all politicians are the same, just different packaging (rep. or dem.). It's nice to try to reduce our impact on the planet, but we can't do it alone.
Answer by QuinnMae at 8:32 AM on Apr. 14, 2009
Answer by lifeasinoit at 8:33 AM on Apr. 14, 2009
What if U.S. cuts in greenhouse gases are offset by Chinese increases?
This has been a question I have been asking for sometime now. China, Iran, Russia... They are more concerned with their bottom line than they are "greenhouse" gasses. If they begin to produce more(at a cheaper cost), while we are producing less(at a more expensive cost)~the US will lose business, industry, jobs, and money... We very well may lose Global Competitiveness.
Answer by grlygrlz2 at 8:38 AM on Apr. 14, 2009
Next question overall
How can I get my one-year-old son to listen to "no"?
Posts with Most Replies