Maggie's Farm

B. Hammer: Things are looking fantastic. Couldn’t be better.

No. The world hasn't stopped revolving around the Sun, and America is still facing great challenges, not least of which has been political dysfunction. But some progress has been made under President Biden.
 

mudbug: A lot of people are angry that the government is taking money away from them an giving it to someone else. Good!

Is this to which you are referring?

mudbug: Curious, you only list Republicans whose PPP loans were forgiven and didn't mention people like Paul Pelosi who is in the same club.

We listed those most vocal in opposition to loan forgiveness, not that they didn't warrant loan forgiveness as part of the program. Pelosi owns some restaurants, and the program allowed the business to keep employees paid during the shutdown.

mudbug: I don't support any loan forgiveness from the government. I don't support any government subsidies of any kind - not to businesses or people.

All government programs benefit some and cost others, such as where to route a new highway.

mudbug: That is a violation of the fifth amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Um, your interpretation would mean the federal government couldn't collect taxes, which was actually one of the motivations for creating a new constitution. The power to tax is right there in Article One.

mudbug: First, there shouldn't have been a shutdown and second Marjorie Taylor Green owns a construction company. The rule should be if you borrow money you pay it back. I don't care which party they belong to or what they said about anything.

That's a reasonable position. We were pointing out the hypocricy of certain political figures.

mudbug: There is no way to completely eliminate beneficial effects to one group or detriments to another of government policy. Obviously, that should be minimized.

That's a reasonable position. Advantages and disadvantages are often unavoidable.

mudbug: My interpretation of that clause of the Fifth Amendment is that the government cannot take your property without compensation. A functioning government is compensation.

Now you're stretching the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.

You object to direct transfers. However, modern society depends on social safety nets, such as unemployment and pension. Most people found that letting old people freeze and starve in their homes was not conducive to civil society. Industrialization means that macroeconomic forces can result in vast cyclical changes in the economy beyond the control of individuals. Unemployment insurance helps sustain workers during periods of transition, reducing the economic and personal damage from unemployment. While you might object to these programs, you should at least understand the reason why they were instituted and remain popular today.

mudbug: Is your interpretation of that clause of the fifth amendment is apparently that the government has the power to take money from its citizens and give it to somebody else to buy their vote?

An obvious strawman. Taxes are distributed among the populace, while "taking" is individual. The Fifth Amendment refers to the latter, not the former. If the government has the power to fund a charity for orphans, then it also has the power to tax the populace for that purpose.

mudbug: Hypocrisy was not the subject. Taking money from a person who earned it and giving it to a person who didn't was the subject.

You said, "A lot of people are angry that the government is taking money away from them an giving it to someone else. Good!" We pointed to some of the most vocal critics of loan forgiveness.

mudbug: No, modern societies have social safety nets. They don't need them.

The most successful modern economies all have social safety nets, regardless of cultural heritage. They also have robust markets.

mudbug: There is no evidence that people ever starved in the street due to poverty.

Not in modern societies, because they have social safety nets. However, famine has been a recurring problem in human history. Even in the properous U.S., during the Great Depression, hunger led to malnutrition and enduring health problems, especially among the elderly.

mudbug: You have not described how the government is prohibited from buying votes, favoring one business over another, or one party over another - which is part of how we are where we are now.

They can do that with postal roads or military contracts, too. Minimizing that requires accountability.

One person burning fossil fuels will not impact the planet. Eight billion people burning fossil fuels will cause significant global warming. One person reducing their carbon emissions will do very little to impact the planet. Eight billion people reducing their emissions will reduce global warming.

It's called leading. One person charging into enemy lines is futile. One person leading others can win the battle.

mudbug: China's economy is smaller than ours by GDP yet it produces twice the emissions that you say are warming the climate than the US does.

That's right. Their emissions per capita are significantly lower, and their cumulative emissions are less than the West.
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/10/Cumulative-CO2-treemap-768x640.png

mudbug: They are exempt from any international pressure to "lead" because they are classified as "a developing economy".

China is being pushed to reduce emissions, but they are an independent country. Politics is hard.

mudbug: China is not going to stop building and using coal fired plants.

There is great economic and political pressure to continue to industrialize in China. People have the right to the benefits of modernity. The problem is being able to continue global economic growth while reducing emissions. Keep in mind that there are mudbugs in China too. And powerful business interests. And a political system that is less flexible to public opinion. China is making the transition, but they believe they need coal to fuel their economy in the interim.

mudbug: {China's} production is less emission efficient than ours. In fact, we are the most emission efficient country.

The term you are looking for is CO2 intensity. China is certainly higher than the U.S. The U.S., however, is not the best in this respect. Most of Europe has lower CO2 intensity than the U.S.
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/co2/world-CO2-intensity.html

You are correct to point to carbon intensity. If you want to address global warming, while also allowing for economic development, then carbon intensity is an important factor.

mudbug: {China is} certainly are feeling it as they continue to build new coal fired plants!

China is also the largest producer and user of wind and solar energy.

mudbug: There may be mudbugs in China but they have no power.

Of course there are mudbugs with power in China. There are huge political forces within China. And you can't discount the importance of popular opinion, even in a country like China which controls the media closely. But within the establishment, there are mudbugs who minimize the problem of global warming, or who say it should be addressed later, or who simply don't care as long as they get theirs. But Chinese scientists keep telling them that the climate problem has to be addressed, and many who listen and are thinking longer term.

mudbug: All power there rests with the CCP.

That's a gross simplification of a complex political situation. First of all, there are a hundred million people within the communist party. And business interests have accumulated vast power since markets have become liberalized. Most are careful not to do anything which could be perceived as undermining the government, but that is not the same as saying they have no influence.

A simple example is the pollution in Beijing. It got so bad, people were up in arms, and the city had to stop development. Since then, they have more closely regulated air quality and electrified their entire public bus system. And, now, they export electric transit. That's why China will be a major player going forward. They are ambitious. They are adaptive. They are proud of what they have accomplished. And they look to the future.

indyjonesouthere: Who is measuring the emissions in China?

China announces when they are building coal or concrete plants. Large industrial projects require planning and coordination with many sectors. It's not a secret.

We're happy to modify our statement.

Z: One person charging into enemy lines can be futile . . .

By the way, Murphy's greatest contribution was to morale. In other words, he led other people to make sacrifices.

IdahoBob: The left stole the election in broad daylight in full view of anyone paying attention.

A falsehood does not make a firm foundation for understanding. There is no evidence that the election was stolen. Multiple courts have viewed the evidence and the record, including a Supreme Court packed with Republicans. None of the courts found any evidence of fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election.

IdahoBob: {Tucker Carlson}

Carlson works for Fox News. Court decision: “Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statements he makes." And, "[w]hether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as exaggeration, non-literal commentary, or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable."

The specific claim is that "At least 36 batches of mail-in ballots from the November election were double counted." However, a hand recount of every ballot confirmed the original count.

IdahoBob: Tucker seems to go out of his way to report honestly

That's not what his own employer attested in court.

IdahoBob: I wouldn't have expected any other result.

A hand recount is independent of the machine count, so double counting would have shown a discrepancy. Instead, the hand recount verified the machine count.

IdahoBob: If you watch the video he exposed additional fraud in the Ga. election

We usually stop at the first falsehood.

indyjonesouthere: Neither does putting cardboard over the windows so that people can't see what's going on under the table.

Absentee ballots can't be opened in front of the public or where cameras are in use. That's because an absentee ballot includes the voter information and the ballot choices, which is required by law to be kept secret.

indyjonesouthere: They were supposed to be shut down and counting NO ballots. They sent the observers home but then turned around and continued the count without observers.

If you are talking about a short video clip from Georgia, the entire video was reviewed by investigators, and there was nothing but normal procedure. And, again, a hand recount confirmed the machine count.

indyjonesouthere: With no observers they can feed anything into the vote count.

In Georgia, there were observers all through the original count, and observers all through the hand recount. The head of elections in Georgia was a Republican.

indyjonesouthere: There were no observers when they shut down the counting. That is still in court.

Well, there's an investigation of intimidation by Trump and his cronies in the election process. Is that what you mean? Did you have another court case in mind?

indyjonesouthere: You still don't understand the concept of the uniparty.

The incentive is that Republicans would still rather win than lose. How did you think it worked?

indyjonesouthere: That is still in court.

Please name the court case to which you are referring.