Flipflopping

[Wiseacre]

I have always thought that on some issues a certain amount of flexibility should be exercised, particularly on economic questions. More/less spending, more/less taxes, monetary policy, stuff like that oughta be adjusted to fit the times. I.E., when the good times are aboomin', taxes should be raised partly to slow down expansion and keep it from overheating, and partly to increased revenues that might be used for paying down debt or for spending when times get tougher. IMHO, there are times when the best option for the country might be contrary to your normal policy.

Moral issues on the other hand, are not something to be flipflopped on. Oh, people can have a change of heart on things like abortion or capital punishment, but you don't change your position on these things depending on the current circumstances. Frankly, I'd rather elect a person who is willing to do what's best for the rest of us, and find ways to address the issues of the minority. But I wouldn't want a person who won't stand for anything on moral grounds either. I suppose there are those who equate taxes and spending as moral issues; I think that's when we get into big arguments, when we should be looking at what is the most effective or efficient way to use our resources.

 

[Trajan]

like, Bjorn Lomborg?

 

[Wiseacre]

Who?

 

[Trajan]

hes a guy who thinks we should ...heck here

Bjørn Lomborg (Danish: [bjɶɐ̯n ˈlʌmbɒˀw]; born January 6, 1965) is a Danish author, academic, and environmental writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001).

In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, which seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics.

Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, and argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions, and on other important world problems such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition. In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat." [1]

Lomborg initially called the greenhouse effect "a myth"[2] and "extremely doubtful"[3] and in his 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist he casts doubt on IPCC models indicating anthropogenic global warming arguing that "the rapid temperature increase from 1910 to 1945 is still left unexplained" [4] by them. However, Lomborg claims to have consistently supported the position that global warming exists, but cost benefit analyses, as calculated by the Copenhagen Consensus ranked climate mitigation initiatives low on a list of international development initiatives when first done in 2004.[5] In a 2010 interview with the New Statesman, Lomborg summarized his position on climate change: "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."[6]

Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the point being he believes there is GW BUT he is sane regards how to approach it, instead of always using the BIG Stick one way approach, he believes we are flip flopping around burning up money , human capital and killing the cause with extremism turning people off, the use of money etc. would be better suited for the long term , sane, goals.

 

[Wiseacre]

I do think we have to be a lot smarter in working on our problems, throwing tons of money at something doesn't solve anything. It just buries it for awhile, and like a toothache it just gets worse over time. Most of our political leaders are locked in ideological trenches lobbing grenades at one another when they oughta be figuring out the best approaches to address the biggest issues of the day. If that means compromising on an issue, so be it. The trick I think, is to get everyone to compromise on something so nobody can point fingers. Cuz if we don't, I think this country is headed for some seriously bad economic times.

 

[Trajan]

agreed.

example; if an agreement for a balanced budget amendment could be reached, and all bills for the next 5 years have zero 'baseline increases', defense incl., if it meant the bush cuts expiring, I would get behind that.

 

[Wiseacre]

agreed.

example; if an agreement for a balanced budget amendment could be reached, and all bills for the next 5 years have zero 'baseline increases', defense incl., if it meant the bush cuts expiring, I would get behind that.

So, higher taxes and a lot less spending in 2013? Sounds like a little too much too soon, a recipe for another recession. I'd go for a spending freeze and a revenue neutral tax reform for both personal and corp taxes. I'd let income earned abroad come home tax free permanently like every other developed country.