Saturday, November 6, 2010
1) Just for the sake of argument here, let's just say that the global-warming deniers are right; that there isn't global-warming, and/or if in fact there is, it isn't in any way caused by human activity. Does that then mean that we shouldn't in any way curb pollution, or that we shouldn't at all conserve? I'm just asking here. I mean, it just seems like we're constantly getting involved in all of these preposterous either-or/black-and-white free for alls and, yes, constantly missing the enormous areas of common ground. Seriously, shouldn't we ALL want to curb air pollution (this, to cut down on lung cancer, asthma, etc.)/preserve our natural resources. Granted, we would want to do it in a way that wouldn't totally disrupt the economy. But that's where the compromise and negotiation come in - you know, all of that good stuff that LBJ and Everett Dirksen used to do, the stuff that Reagan and Tip O'Neal used to do.............2) There's this blogger out there who's constantly trying to convince me that tax rates and economic activity are completely unrelated, and that most of our economic activity is strictly dependent upon other factors; demographics, interest rates, etc.. My response to him has always been that, while, yes, there may in fact be a whole host of other factors involved, there has to be at least some interrelationship between taxes and economic growth. For instance/I would ask him, if a person and/or business has been paying X taxes in state/country A, would there not be at least a semblance of a chance that that individual/business would move to state/country B if the taxes in that state/country were say X/2? Yes, of course, there may in fact be other factors such as education and productivity to consider but, in addition to those, I'm saying....Needless to say, I haven't had a lot of success in convincing him.