View Poll Results: What is (are) the best way(s) to eliminate the deficit?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • A balanced budget amendment

    24 24.74%
  • A line item veto amenndment

    17 17.53%
  • replace income tx with a national retail sales tax

    10 10.31%
  • Raise taxes on the rich

    40 41.24%
  • Raise taxes on the middle-class

    7 7.22%
  • Raise taxes stealthily in the form of fees, a federal lottery, etc.

    4 4.12%
  • Nationalize oil and natural gas on federal land and get into the enegry business like Saudi Arabia

    11 11.34%
  • Cut federal spending

    66 68.04%
  • Sell services to prizate industry at a profit, privatize then tax them

    4 4.12%
  • other

    26 26.80%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 285

Thread: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

  1. #271
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel, in post #269 View Post
    I have no problem understanding what environmentalism is about, never said I had a problem with it, other than it needs to be balanced against economic needs and the need to advance technologically. [...]
    Really? Let's review:

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel, in post #242 View Post
    I'm not exactly sure what all this eviroidiot talk has to do with reducing the deficit, especially when enviromentalism is a major cause of shipping jobs out of America. Seems enviromentalism is a means of increasing the deficit, raising unemployment and destroying the economy. [...]

  2. #272
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    [...] The theory is apparently that if you put out "cleaner" air, then you get "cleaner" air in the atmosphere and if you reduce the ratio of CO2, you reduce CO2. But this presents problems.

    Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. [...]
    No, it can't. Unless the first automobile is emitting 10 times more exhaust volume than automobile number two, which is extremely unlikely (effectively, auto #1 would need to have a 10 liter engine while auto #2 would need to have a 1 liter engine).

    However, since you said your figures were only examples, I can see where a 5.7 liter engine in a sports car would generate some three times as much exhaust volume, at the same RPM, as a 1.9 liter engine in an econobox. But that is irrelevant since it is a scale issue... if EPA allowable emission of CO2 (to continue with your example) is reduced from 100ppm to 50ppm, and if both automobiles above originally emitted 100ppm, then bringing both autos into compliance would cut the emission of CO2 in half with respect to those two autos. Where's the problem?

  3. #273
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    No, it can't. Unless the first automobile is emitting 10 times more exhaust volume than automobile number two, which is extremely unlikely (effectively, auto #1 would need to have a 10 liter engine while auto #2 would need to have a 1 liter engine).

    However, since you said your figures were only examples, I can see where a 5.7 liter engine in a sports car would generate some three times as much exhaust volume, at the same RPM, as a 1.9 liter engine in an econobox. But that is irrelevant since it is a scale issue... if EPA allowable emission of CO2 (to continue with your example) is reduced from 100ppm to 50ppm, and if both automobiles above originally emitted 100ppm, then bringing both autos into compliance would cut the emission of CO2 in half with respect to those two autos. Where's the problem?
    LOL, in the early 1970s, there were "smog" pumps on automobiles. What they did was simply pump fresh atmoshere into the exhaust stream. When measured by parts per million, this of course caused the measurements to decrease, however, since it was introduced directly into the exhaust and not the combustion process, it actually did not change the total amound of pollutants being emitted.

    Take a glass, put in 1 oz of coke. You now have 1 million particles per million of coke. Now add 1 oz of water, now you have 500k particles of coke and 500k particles of water. If you measure, like the EPA, strictly on the ratio of particals, then you have reduced the amount of coke in the glass to half of what it was at first. That is how the EPA regs are written, that is how they measure. Most everyone else will tell you that you still have 1 oz of coke in both measurements. This clearly demonstrates that measurements based upon only parts per million actually gives you no measure of the total number of particles or the actual volume of particles.

    In your example above, both cars end up emitting 50ppm (parts per million), but both use more gas than at 100ppm and car 1 uses twice as much gas as car two per mile, are you telling me that you truthfully believe they are both putting out the same amount of emissions? What you are saying with your argument is that the EPA is right and volume of emittants and number of particles don't really matter, only the parts per million matter.

    Wow, and some people wonder why people with common sense wouldn't trust the EPA and environmentalist backing them.

  4. #274
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    [...] Problem 2: If gasoline is burned with oxygen at 100% efficiency, the only byproducts are Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the ratio, or parts per million of CO2 must increase with an increase in the efficiency of the process. Limiting the parts per million of CO2 can only lead to decreased efficiency. A more efficient vehicle could put out above the alloted parts per million of CO2 on an emissions test but actually produce less CO2 per minute or mile driven.
    Two-stage problem with your thesis: 1. If the engine burns gasoline more efficiently, then it will use less fuel.

    2. The only CO2 regulation I could find relating to automobiles is California, which is not regulating CO2 on a ppm basis, but on a total emission per energy produced basis -- "On April 23, 2009, CARB approved the specific rules for the LCFS that will go into effect in January 2011.[19][20] The rule proposal prepared by its technical staff was approved by a 9-1 vote, to set the 2020 maximum carbon intensity reference value to 86 grams of carbon dioxide released per megajoule of energy produced.[18][21]" (Wikipedia). Therefore in your hypothesis less fuel is used, less energy is consumed for the same motive force (greater efficiency), and any 'ppm' increase in CO2 emission due to the increased efficiency may well become a zero sum issue since while more 'ppm' is generated per gallon of fuel, fewer gallons are used due to the increased efficiency of the engine. In any case, since the wording of the regulation is "energy produced", not energy "consumed", efficiency does not apply. For example:

    50% efficient engine generates 100ppm CO2 and 1 megajoule of energy.
    99% efficient engine generates 200ppm CO2 and 2 megajoules of energy (it is twice as efficient; assumption is that the same amount of fuel is consumed).
    Each engine generates 100ppm CO2 for each megajoule of energy produced. Zero sum (assuming the ppm ratios are correct, and I have no idea -- this is just a linear extrapolation). That the 99% engine generates double the CO2 from the same amount of fuel consumed is irrelevant in this scenario (if you know of ppm CO2 regulations, then by all means post 'em up... I didn't look beyond CA, which I took to be 'worst case').
    Last edited by Karl; 07-28-12 at 05:16 PM.

  5. #275
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    [...] are you telling me that you truthfully believe they are both putting out the same amount of emissions? [....]
    No, I was truthfully telling you that in the example that I provided, both automobiles halved their emissions. I was also truthfully telling you that the large engine was emitting three times the pollution of the small engine (both before and after the halving).

    Where did I fail in conveying that info?

  6. #276
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    [...] In your example above, both cars end up emitting 50ppm (parts per million), but both use more gas than at 100ppm and car 1 uses twice as much gas as car two per mile [...]
    As point of fact, car 1 and car 2 could be using the same amount of gasoline per mile, or very close to it. A Corvette can get 26 MPG highway, a Cobalt will not get twice that amount (or anywhere close to twice -- actually it gets about 35). The difference in total emission is related to the amount of air that each engine is pumping through it... it appears that you don't understand your own argument:

    The small engine produces, say, 1.9 liters of air per second with 50 ppm of pollutant.
    The large engine produces, say, 5.7 liters of air per second with 50 ppm of pollutant.

    5.7 liters of air is three times as much as 1.9 liters, so even though the ppm figure is the same, the larger engine has produced three times the total pollutant.

    I thought that was your argument. In fact, I thought it wasn't all that bad; even though your conclusion was faulty

  7. #277
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. (Yes, these numbers are abritrary, but I do not have actual data at present, but they serve to demonstrate my point.) Obviously the first car puts out more pollutants, however, "enviromentalist" ensist that the parts per million measure is an accurate measure for pollutants and CO2.

    Problem 3: Indroduction of "pollutant" reducer into gasoline/fuel. Ethanol is the most common of these "pollutant" reducers. When measured by an emissions test using the parts per million formula, it does indeed reduce the ratio of undesirable pollutants. However, since the introduction of 10% Ethanol into gasoline reduces efficiency (mpg) by around 15%, even if the 10% Ethanol blend reduce pollutants by 10%, the overall pollution emitted, measured in particles per mile, would increase because you are using more fuel and the reduction of pollutants is not equal to the reduction in efficiency.
    Both of these are full of half truths and pseudo-science. Where did you get this stuff?
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  8. #278
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    LOL, in the early 1970s, there were "smog" pumps on automobiles. What they did was simply pump fresh atmoshere into the exhaust stream. When measured by parts per million, this of course caused the measurements to decrease, however, since it was introduced directly into the exhaust and not the combustion process, it actually did not change the total amound of pollutants being emitted.
    More half truths/pseudo-science!

    Adding O2 to hot exhaust gases continued combustion so that more fuel was oxidized. However, adding so much extra heat to the exhaust caused problems. The practice was replaced with catalytic converters.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Wow, and some people wonder why people with common sense wouldn't trust the EPA and environmentalist backing them.
    If your recent examples in this thread are any guide it's obvious these 'people' of whom you speak don't have any common sense and are in dire need of an education.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-29-12 at 03:44 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  9. #279
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the majority of scientists in the world are politically motivated. You might try the conspiracy forum. Its down the hall and to the right.
    This is a useful debating weapon: anyone who suspects the motives of established authorities is a conspiracy nut. Was Machiavelli a conspiracy nut? What about George Orwell?

    And who benefits by funding irrational accusations anyway? It makes those attacked look like victims of nutcases and leads people to trust only what they are told by self-appointed authorities in the mainstream.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  10. #280
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    So, in RightWingWorld, pollution is good, eh?
    "Clean" natural air is the most toxic of all. It is full of bacteria and viruses, which pollution kills. How many mass-murdering plagues have hit since auto "pollution"? The last, which killed over 20 million people, was in 1919, when car exhausts had not yet been prevalent enough to cleanse the air. Nature is not benevolent, those who worship it hate man's drive to overcome nature. "Mother Nature" is a childish cartoon fantasy.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •