Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Urges U.S. President to Stay in Paris Climate Pact
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What do you mean by give you back your share of the Wall Street bailout?
I'm pretty sure I know what you're (generally) referring to when you refer to the Wall Street bailout, a bit of a misnomer though that reference is. But it sounds as though you think those programs ended up contributing to our debt, i.e. costing taxpayer money?
If that's what you mean, then that's not really correct. TARP as a whole will likely end up costing a relatively small amount of money (considering the original size of the program) - $10 or 20 billion. But that won't come from the programs that might be thought of as the Wall Street bailout. Taxpayers have come out ahead on the bank programs. There were some small loses from assistance provided to smaller banks, but those losses were more than offset by gains from the larger banks. We're around $25 billion in the black when it comes to the latter. We're even in the black with regard to AIG if you include the money we received for the non-TARP AIG shares we got in connection with the assistance provided to it by the Federal Reserve.
Where we've taken losses is from the auto industry program (mostly from the GM/UAW assistance) and the programs which provided assistance to homeowners (e.g. HAMP). Basically, the gains we made through the bank programs (and the AIG assistance) covered all of what we lost through the auto industry program and around half of what we lost through the homeowners assistance programs.
In 100 years. 100. Trillions. One hundred years.
[doublepost=1496371281][/doublepost]
Also, Everyone flipped out after we withdrew from Kyoto, but we were the 1st industrialized country 2 meet reduction goals anyways. America does right because our society demands it and we expect it from ourselves.
Call me when Russia, India or China actually do something of value when it comes to their environmental damage they impose on the earth.
I'd be scared too if my communist fever dream was collapsing right in front of me.
You live in a bubble. Your problem is you have no diversity in thought so those who think differently frighten you almost as bad as brown people scare conservatives amirite??? (That was a joke... it sok to joke)
Nobody denies the climate doesn't change. My point is it has changed tremendously in the distant past without the help of mankind. I'll take our current climate over the past anytime. The climate has been so good for the past 10,000 years it has allowed mankind to flourish all over the world. Did you know the climate was warming over most of the past 10,000 years than it is now? Look at the facts that are presented by real climate scientist and not some political talking head. You know, the ones who said 20 years ago Florida would be under water in 20 years.
https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-were-warmer-than-today-for-most-of-the-past-10000-years/
Like it
[doublepost=1496379065][/doublepost]
I feel the same way about do nothing hippy leftist slobs.
Let's agree that we disagree. However, as a final comment, when words 'economy' and 'climate' are in the same sentence, you know something's not right.
Boy, you're a regular comedic genius
Yes, a genius. Almost at the level of the CNN contractor and progressive liberal Kathy Griffin. Or the ethics teaching Berkley professor Eric Clanton who seem to think aggravated assault is funny. May them both rot in jail for a very long time.
First my respect to you for you trying to argue on merit. Unfortunately, you are wrong. Fed is a scam, and usury is a scam. I'll let Edward Griffin explain it to you and our other friends here in the forum.
Your conclusions aren't very scientific either.
Saying how the ”Big Bang” affected the universe is comparable to blowing something up on a tiny scale here on Earth isn't really a good comparison.
Since I'm a simpleton, please explain to me where the singularity that expanded and _created_ the universe came from? Why did to start to expand? And how come it created a phenomenon (our universe) that is characterised by total order and harmony from the micro to the macro level.
I challenge this concept and say it's unproven garbage made up to justify a mechanical cosmological model that by design excludes both God and importantly also consciousness. Just like the other main garbage "scientific" model people religiously worship, Darwinian evolution of course.
Now, this _model_ is a concept that you will have to _believe_ in since it cannot be proven which makes "science" a religion. You need to believe what the priests (the scientists) say and if you don't you are a heretic and deserve to be tarred, feathered and put to public shame.
I argue, you follow science religiously, it's a belief system based on the notion that God and consciousness does not exist. All modern "science" rest on this fundamental concept and studies and concepts that challenge this are by default shunned and thrown on the garbage heap. Along with the heretics that dare to propound them.
I argue, the universe is designed, design implicate consciousness or a designer, I say that is a more rational standpoint than stating that something came from almost nothing, for the sake of argument. It doesn't make the _model_ less silly.
I'll let a truly brilliant scientist explain this to you.
Finally, cudos to the mods that allow us to have this discussion. I'm sure you are bombared by victimised and angry leftists that want to censor it completely.
[MOD NOTE]
A number of posts were removed, due to rules violations. Please stay on topic and remember to be respectful.
Rules for Appropriate Debate
A number of posts were removed, due to rules violations. Please stay on topic and remember to be respectful.
Rules for Appropriate Debate
You don't believe in science, you're looking for answers, and accept they're not all there. Whereas a god worshipper cannot accept that, thanks to a fairy tale that explains everything... When I need a "fantasy" fix I prefer Lord Of The Rings thank you very much.
Believing in something is precisely denying that it can be proven. Otherwise there's no need to believe in it anymore.
Can you explain why your "creator" did it in the first place?
Anyway this is too off topic maybe we should just stop.
Nice. You think they're not bombarded with angry rightist nutcases every once in a while?
For everyone: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-debate-climate-change-skeptics-klas-skogmar
Especially curios what @hagar think about that article.
Especially curios what @hagar think about that article.
Yeah, those Founding Fathers were pretty wise in setting up those safeguards against dictatorial rule, especially for those dictators we like. The 2/3 Senatorial requirement for treaties show how seriously they took it.
I'm trying to put it gently, but it all comes down to dictatorial rule, where one person dictates what 330,000,000 have to do. As for the "like" part, there are people that agree with at the person at the top, both at 11:59 on 1/20/17 and two minutes later.
As for me, I'd like to see the details of this deal that was broken. All of the commentators on TV are "all or nothing" and that is rarely the actual case.
For everyone: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-debate-climate-change-skeptics-klas-skogmar
Especially curios what @hagar think about that article.
It's a nice summary of a much more complicated domain, but the essence is correct.
However, in my experience the psychology to convince people about the importance of climate change is wrong. Throwing data and facts on people won't help. If reasoning, logic and facts were important, nobody would have voted for Trump, yet they did.
People know Trump won't get them better healthcare or a better job, they know he will only help out his millionaire friends, they know he doesn't get world politics or science, they know something is deeply wrong with our society, our environment and the climate, but they choose to elect somebody who ignores all of this, to give them peace of mind. They just want to live in the fantasy.
This behaviour is even worse for climate change, because it's a problem nobody can tackle on their own, it's bigger than all of us, and it's scary because of the massive consequences for us and the natural world around us. So people get overwhelmed and look the other way. And by now, people are sick and tired of hearing about the climate.
So, I'm quite pessimistic about this topic.
The Ozarks is my stomping grounds; the University of Oklahoma is school. And thank you!
Never been chasing in the Ozarks...I'm more than a little afraid to. It's dangerous even by chasing standards.
The name "changed" (it never really did) because climate change is more than temperature. There are significant precipitation impacts that could be economically devastating down the road. The planet as a whole will still warm.
The most comprehensive name is, and always has been, anthropogenic climate change.
Haha, you are so funny: There's only fact, faithfully gathered and statistically scrutinized. As a "scientist", you should be well aware that statistic do not prove anything, they only show correlation. The British have this saying: "lies, big lies and statistics". "Scientific" is no substitute for "The True", it merely indicate that certain research procedures have been followed, that's all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Land doesn't vote, except in the Senate.
[doublepost=1496414852][/doublepost]
Jesus.
You're right that statistical treatments can be misused or abused. Gotta be careful about that and maintain a critical eye when evaluating conclusions.
It's also true that investigators have spent thousands of years refining the way to get at the truth of the natural world. It rejects opinion and bias, it self-critical and self-skeptical, and is called the scientific method. If you want to find out the answer to a scientific question, your only option is to follow the scientific method.
We don't know, and people far above our pay grade will always be trying to find out. Until then, they're not going to listen to what a book says happened without evidence.
Also, the universe is anything but "total order and harmony."
It was a choice between bad and worse. Some chose bad, and the others chose worse. As a matter of who won, heck, they both did. She got more popular votes, and he got more electoral ones.