FILTHY Republicans want our budgets to fit within the taxes they are willing to pay - with little concern for what we NEED

41 posts / 0 new

They don't even have the #uc#!n@ decency to cut things that we the people would want cut - such as the bloated military budget - to get it down to the level THEY would like it at.

NO, they want to cut things that benefit the poor, the retired, the elderly - and educate our children.

And if they CAN'T get it down to the levels they would like it at with what THEY want to cut, to match the RIDICULOUSLY LOW taxes they want to pay - then debts and deficits are just fine and freaking dandy.

Well I'd rather be a tax and spend liberal than a spend and spend moronic imbecile!

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm

Comments

Let's give this another round - I think there is a discussion here.

Or is it too obvious?

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm

;)

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm

Have a beer Timothy. It'll all work out.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Well I'd rather be a tax and spend liberal than a spend and spend moronic imbecile!

I prefer: It's better to elect a tax and spend liberal than borrow and steal republican.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Yeah, we've cut so much! LOL! What does our idiot in the White House want, a $1.4 trillion deficit? We are in the red another $4 billion every day with democrats in charge. What a bunch of suckers.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote willat:

Yeah, we've cut so much! LOL! What does our idiot in the White House want, a $1.4 trillion deficit? We are in the red another $4 billion every day with democrats in charge. What a bunch of suckers.

If moronic conservatives (ALL Republicans / MANY Democrats) would let us tax the people with the money like we use too the deficits would be a lot smaller.

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm
Quote TimothyD11:
Quote willat:

Yeah, we've cut so much! LOL! What does our idiot in the White House want, a $1.4 trillion deficit? We are in the red another $4 billion every day with democrats in charge. What a bunch of suckers.

If moronic conservatives (ALL Republicans / MANY Democrats) would let us tax the people with the money like we use too the deficits would be a lot smaller.

No, they wouldn't. The economy would be a lot smaller, not the debt. Oh, but at least the precious government would stay big. The wealthy already pay all the taxes anyway, we have one of the highest tax rates on the rich in the world.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote willat:

we have one of the highest tax rates on the rich in the world.

Can you cite a source, please?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote willat:

we have one of the highest tax rates on the rich in the world.

Can you cite a source, please?

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

This shows who pays what. I heard on the radio that our world standing is very high, 45%, on how much we tax the wealthy, as compared to Great Britain at 38%. There was only one other country above 40%, don't remember which one it was.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote willat:

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

I heard on the radio that our world standing is very high, 45%, on how much we tax the wealthy, as compared to Great Britain at 38%. There was only one other country above 40%, don't remember which one it was.

From your "source" from 2007:

"Overall, taxes are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower in the United States than they are in most other industrial nations."

As to what you "heard on the radio:" the top marginal income tax rate for individuals is 35%, not 45%. But I do know that the right wing likes to combine all taxes everywhere to come to some very high number for an "overall tax rate." For example, in Los Angeles the sales tax is almost 10%. But I don't think 10% of Steven Spielberg's income goes to sales taxes. And I doubt the right wingers combine all the various taxes in Japan and Germany, for example, to come up with a comparable "overall tax rate."

http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2010_i1040trs.pdf

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote willat:

we have one of the highest tax rates on the rich in the world.

Can you cite a source, please?

Here's something:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/oecd_historical_topr...

USA is bottom of page 3. There's more than one country with rate higher than 40%. And they have top US rate at 41.9% (for 2008.) Probably still more accurate than something you "heard on the radio."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote willat:

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

I heard on the radio that our world standing is very high, 45%, on how much we tax the wealthy, as compared to Great Britain at 38%. There was only one other country above 40%, don't remember which one it was.

From your "source" from 2007:

"Overall, taxes are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower in the United States than they are in most other industrial nations."

This actually supports what I said. Since I said that our taxes on the wealthy are among the highest in the world, it makes sense that overall, taxes are lower here. When you figure in the rest of the taxpayers that don't pay nearly as much as the wealthy, you get a much lower overall rate.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Will, if 1% of the people earn 90% of the money, don't you think that the 1% should pay 90% of the taxes? I think they should.

If you went to dinner with a poor friend, who would buy? Would you just count the number of people at the table, divide it by two and stick your hand out for his share?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Will, if 1% of the people earn 90% of the money, don't you think that the 1% should pay 90% of the taxes? I think they should.

If you went to dinner with a poor friend, who would buy? Would you just count the number of people at the table, divide it by two and stick your hand out for his share?

The wealthy already pay at a higher rate.

As far as dinner, I wouldn't stick out my hand, nobody is buying anything from me. I'd pay for what I purchased of course and would feel no obligation to pay for anyone else's meal, wether they are at my table or not.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote willat:
Quote TimothyD11:
Quote willat:

Yeah, we've cut so much! LOL! What does our idiot in the White House want, a $1.4 trillion deficit? We are in the red another $4 billion every day with democrats in charge. What a bunch of suckers.

If moronic conservatives (ALL Republicans / MANY Democrats) would let us tax the people with the money like we use too the deficits would be a lot smaller.

No, they wouldn't. The economy would be a lot smaller, not the debt. Oh, but at least the precious government would stay big. The wealthy already pay all the taxes anyway, we have one of the highest tax rates on the rich in the world.

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

IN FACT I would argue the economy would be BIGGER AND BETTER, because government WOULD NOT be cut and would be FUNDED THROUGH TAXES.

PERHAPS even EXPANDED.

Which would put MONEY OUT INTO THE ECONOMY through PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS.

Which, IN TURN, would JUMP START THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

* MAIN STREET private sector - NOT Wall Street and the "already so rich we don't know what to do with our money" crowd.

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm
The wealthy already pay at a higher rate.
That's how progressive taxes work. That's how progressive taxes have always worked.
The economy would be a lot smaller, not the debt. Oh, but at least the precious government would stay big. The wealthy already pay all the taxes anyway, we have one of the highest tax rates on the rich in the world.
That is absolutely not even close to true. Do you people just ignore the charts and statistics? Who told you this? Where did you get this idea? Do you have any objective data to support this notion? Did you make this up yourself, or is something you heard on Faux News?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

[/quote]

No, they wouldn't. The economy would be a lot smaller, not the debt. Oh, but at least the precious government would stay big. The wealthy already pay all the taxes anyway, we have one of the highest tax rates on the rich in the world.

[/quote]

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

IN FACT I would argue the economy would be BIGGER AND BETTER, because government WOULD NOT be cut and would be FUNDED THROUGH TAXES.

PERHAPS even EXPANDED.

Which would put MONEY OUT INTO THE ECONOMY through PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS.

Which, IN TURN, would JUMP START THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

* MAIN STREET private sector - NOT Wall Street and the "already so rich we don't know what to do with our money" crowd.

[/quote]

Economies only work like that in communist dreams. So, you believe the government should suck more money out of the private sector in the form of taxes to cause it to take off? That's a good one. The government is like a parasite, it doesn't produce anything but obsticles (at least today's government) and lives off the private sector. The private sector is much more efficeint at using funds than the government ever could be.

But, go ahead, explain how we would tax our way to prosperity. Maybe give an example of a country doing it. I wonder why they all aren't doing it?

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
But, go ahead, explain how we would tax our way to prosperity. Maybe give an example of a country doing it. I wonder why they all aren't doing it?
I can do that. It is important to understand that, when Government taxes money, every dollar is destined to become somebody's income and returned to the economy. The more that enhances aggregate demand, the higher the GDP, the higher the GDP, the more prosperity is created. As for examples, it's pretty clear that America from 1945 and through the 1970's make a pretty good example. All the truly advanced European countries continue to provide a good example. I would provide charts and tables, but my experience is that Conservatives don't bother to read them.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Right on!!!

arthurwmathis's picture
arthurwmathis
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So willat, what would you do about the dual problem of corporations receiving record profits WITHOUT hiring the 20% or so who are unemployed or way underemployed, and with the Main Street economy still in the $#!tter?

I'll wait for your Faux News / Rush Limbaugh regurgitation - that YOU don't even understand because it makes NO sense.

Here's the ANSWER:

TAX the wealthy the way we use to and USE that money to pay for INFRASTRUCTURE we desperately need, putting people BACK to work.

And then THEY'LL put EVEN MORE people back to work - IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR through the money they spend -

WHICH will get the economy out of the ditch.

OH, and it'll have the ADDED BONUS of increasing TAX REVENUE to PAY FOR GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF CUTTING IT -

WHICH HAS THE OPPOSITE AFFECT OF WHAT I DESCRIBED ABOVE!

Overcome your conservative brainwashing and illness - you've been misled.

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm
Quote Art:
But, go ahead, explain how we would tax our way to prosperity. Maybe give an example of a country doing it. I wonder why they all aren't doing it?
I can do that. It is important to understand that, when Government taxes money, every dollar is destined to become somebody's income and returned to the economy. The more that enhances aggregate demand, the higher the GDP, the higher the GDP, the more prosperity is created. As for examples, it's pretty clear that America from 1945 and through the 1970's make a pretty good example. All the truly advanced European countries continue to provide a good example. I would provide charts and tables, but my experience is that Conservatives don't bother to read them.

Listen, that's a pretty lame reply. Your only point is that the money will go back into the economy? Yeah, after it goes thought the government inefficient process instead of the efficient free market, There is no efficiency curve for the government, there are no forces acting on the government to provide value and efficiency in what it does, The opposite is true, the government provides a watered down, drag on the economy factor that is built in and can not be countered. The government is unable to provide creativity, efficiency, or the growth and competition driven innovation of the free market. The government creates prosperity in relation to the free market as a firefly creates light compared to the sun.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote TimothyD11:

So willat, what would you do about the dual problem of corporations receiving record profits WITHOUT hiring the 20% or so who are unemployed or way underemployed, and with the Main Street economy still in the $#!tter?

I'll wait for your Faux News / Rush Limbaugh regurgitation - that YOU don't even understand because it makes NO sense.

Here's the ANSWER:

TAX the wealthy the way we use to and USE that money to pay for INFRASTRUCTURE we desperately need, putting people BACK to work.

Before Obama got in office, it wasn't considered a "problem" for corporations to have a record profit. What is the alternative that you are promoting, spreading the Obama misery around so that companies are not making money? Is that a way to fix the economy? Obama obviously hasn't a clue, or doesn't care.

Oh, is it now the private sector that has to find a solution to the 20% who need work? Are they to ignore the fact that we have democrats in power for six years that are bent on tax increases and iron fisted government expansion that is choking the life out of the economy?

More and more government and taxes, less and less liberty and freedom, that is what we have gotten from the left, and you are all surprised that Obama has been a jobs disaster since he was ushered into office. Wake up!

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yah! Before that socialist Obama got into office everything was just fine!

Freedom and Liberty was raining from the sky before Obama came and took it all away.

I wanna go back to the good ol' days.

There's no place like home, there's no place like home.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote willat:
Quote Art:
But, go ahead, explain how we would tax our way to prosperity. Maybe give an example of a country doing it. I wonder why they all aren't doing it?
I can do that. It is important to understand that, when Government taxes money, every dollar is destined to become somebody's income and returned to the economy. The more that enhances aggregate demand, the higher the GDP, the higher the GDP, the more prosperity is created. As for examples, it's pretty clear that America from 1945 and through the 1970's make a pretty good example. All the truly advanced European countries continue to provide a good example. I would provide charts and tables, but my experience is that Conservatives don't bother to read them.

Listen, that's a pretty lame reply. Your only point is that the money will go back into the economy? Yeah, after it goes thought the government inefficient process instead of the efficient free market, There is no efficiency curve for the government, there are no forces acting on the government to provide value and efficiency in what it does, The opposite is true, the government provides a watered down, drag on the economy factor that is built in and can not be countered. The government is unable to provide creativity, efficiency, or the growth and competition driven innovation of the free market. The government creates prosperity in relation to the free market as a firefly creates light compared to the sun.

So my little simple friend, money provided by the government doesn't ULTIMATELY end up in the hands of somebody who will spend it in the private sector?

If YOU were one of the 20% or so who were unemployed or underemployed and offered a government job with a good salary you wouldn't take it? The grocery store down the street wouldn't take THAT money?

Please, sell crazy somewhere else - you have no beeping idea what you're even talking about.

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm
Quote TimothyD11:

So willat, what would you do about the dual problem of corporations receiving record profits WITHOUT hiring the 20% or so who are unemployed or way underemployed, and with the Main Street economy still in the $#!tter?

I'll wait for your Faux News / Rush Limbaugh regurgitation - that YOU don't even understand because it makes NO sense.

Here's the ANSWER:

TAX the wealthy the way we use to and USE that money to pay for INFRASTRUCTURE we desperately need, putting people BACK to work.

Quote willat:Before Obama got in office, it wasn't considered a "problem" for corporations to have a record profit. What is the alternative that you are promoting, spreading the Obama misery around so that companies are not making money? Is that a way to fix the economy? Obama obviously hasn't a clue, or doesn't care.

IT WAS starting to become a problem. Do you think it's APPROPRIATE that businesses are having record profits without hiring people - leaving a large segment of our population in the dust?

Quote willat:Oh, is it now the private sector that has to find a solution to the 20% who need work? Are they to ignore the fact that we have democrats in power for six years that are bent on tax increases and iron fisted government expansion that is choking the life out of the economy?

I'm CERTAIN that you have had a tax CUT. You don't sound smart enough to have climbed high enough to be among the people who are paying higher taxes.

Quote willat:More and more government and taxes, less and less liberty and freedom, that is what we have gotten from the left, and you are all surprised that Obama has been a jobs disaster since he was ushered into office. Wake up!

WHOSE liberty and freedom are we talking about? You can't have much liberty and freedom when you have a job with $#!tty pay and benefits that can't pay for the necessities in life - or worse yet, you HAVE no job.

GOD FORBID you tax someone with countless millions to put dozens or hundreds of people to work while fixing our infrastructure and preparing our country and it's people for the future.

Only an IDIOT can't see that it's better for society and the country to have lower unemployment and a more evenly distributed prosperity.

And before you say it, I'm NOT talking socialism - I'm talking about regulated, slightly knee-capped capitalism with the sharp edges removed.

DON'T go along with this and the economy WILL continue to flounder.

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm
Listen, that's a pretty lame reply. Your only point is that the money will go back into the economy? Yeah, after it goes thought the government inefficient process instead of the efficient free market, There is no efficiency curve for the government, there are no forces acting on the government to provide value and efficiency in what it does, The opposite is true, the government provides a watered down, drag on the economy factor that is built in and can not be countered. The government is unable to provide creativity, efficiency, or the growth and competition driven innovation of the free market. The government creates prosperity in relation to the free market as a firefly creates light compared to the sun.
Have you ever heard one of those great doubletalk comedians? It sounds like Englsh, you recognize most of the words and it seems to conform to proper grammatical form, but all of a sudden you are getting absolutely no meaning from what he's saying. Here's a pretty good example of what I mean (There are two audio clips).

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, I don't really need to reply with the same reasoning, your stubborn ignorance prevents you from processing anything that is not left wing socialism with regards to the economy.

I think you should rethink the position that we need more government.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
I think you should rethink the position that we need more government.
I don't care what you think.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thinking's for losers. Thinking only slows down the process of accomplishing stupid things.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:

Thinking's for losers. Thinking only slows down the process of accomplishing stupid things.

Now, that is a great description of what the left has done to this country.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:
Listen, that's a pretty lame reply. Your only point is that the money will go back into the economy? Yeah, after it goes thought the government inefficient process instead of the efficient free market, There is no efficiency curve for the government, there are no forces acting on the government to provide value and efficiency in what it does, The opposite is true, the government provides a watered down, drag on the economy factor that is built in and can not be countered. The government is unable to provide creativity, efficiency, or the growth and competition driven innovation of the free market. The government creates prosperity in relation to the free market as a firefly creates light compared to the sun.
Have you ever heard one of those great doubletalk comedians? It sounds like Englsh, you recognize most of the words and it seems to conform to proper grammatical form, but all of a sudden you are getting absolutely no meaning from what he's saying. Here's a pretty good example of what I mean (There are two audio clips).

EXACTLY - a bunch of fancy sounding words from Mark Levin's, Sean Hannity's or Rand Paul's personal dictionary and thesaurus scrambled all together to mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm
Quote TimothyD11:
Quote Art:
Listen, that's a pretty lame reply. Your only point is that the money will go back into the economy? Yeah, after it goes thought the government inefficient process instead of the efficient free market, There is no efficiency curve for the government, there are no forces acting on the government to provide value and efficiency in what it does, The opposite is true, the government provides a watered down, drag on the economy factor that is built in and can not be countered. The government is unable to provide creativity, efficiency, or the growth and competition driven innovation of the free market. The government creates prosperity in relation to the free market as a firefly creates light compared to the sun.
Have you ever heard one of those great doubletalk comedians? It sounds like Englsh, you recognize most of the words and it seems to conform to proper grammatical form, but all of a sudden you are getting absolutely no meaning from what he's saying. Here's a pretty good example of what I mean (There are two audio clips).

EXACTLY - a bunch of fancy sounding words from Mark Levin's, Sean Hannity's or Rand Paul's personal dictionary and thesaurus scrambled all together to mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Code - Good grief.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

willat, my I ask where you get your news and infornation from? How did you do in high school? Did you go to college? Take an economics course or two? Perhaps a civics class? Do you read newspapers?

If you don't have impressive answers to those questions perhaps you ought to consider getting an education and starting to read something other than right wing nonsense. It's never too late.

You are ignorant but you don't have to be stupid.

You're only stupid if you proudly fester in your ignorance.

Save yourself.

And in the process you'll be helping to save this country.

TimothyD11's picture
TimothyD11
Joined:
Nov. 13, 2010 3:46 pm
Quote TimothyD11:

willat, my I ask where you get your news and infornation from? How did you do in high school? Did you go to college? Take an economics course or two? Perhaps a civics class? Do you read newspapers?

If you don't have impressive answers to those questions perhaps you ought to consider getting an education and starting to read something other than right wing nonsense. It's never too late.

You are ignorant but you don't have to be stupid.

You're only stupid if you proudly fester in your ignorance.

Save yourself.

And in the process you'll be helping to save this country.

Do you know what the word "obnoxious" means? Try to act a little less offensive, it would do you some good.

willat's picture
willat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Personal insults are not allowed on this board, and are a great way to show you don;t know how to win the argument on its merits.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote SueN:

Personal insults are not allowed on this board, and are a great way to show you don;t know how to win the argument on its merits.

No doubt! Using the term "FILTHY Republicans" in the thread title was over the line.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sue,

I agree 100%! To insult someone instead of reinforcing the argument is no way to communicate. It seems to me that the reason that there is so much venom is that there is no agreement as to what the rules are to be. Both sides, left and right, feel they are being cheated because our elected officals have changed the rules so many times over the last sixty years and manipulated the system so well that the Constitution is no longer applicable. It is only in the way or given lip service by both parties. It is like a game of kickball in a school yard where the team on offense changes, manipulates, or ignores the original rules agreed to at the start of the game. There are some things that should be done by the Feds and things that are not theirs to do. Anything NOT expressly authorizied by the Constitution should not even be discussed at the Federal level. We have the rule of law. But we are spinning out of control under the rule man. Please get past blind party politics and party blame and embrace the founders view of our Goverment and its strictly limited role in our individual lives.

teapartywacko's picture
teapartywacko
Joined:
Feb. 25, 2011 5:48 pm

You're an idiot.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote teapartywacko:

Sue,

I agree 100%! To insult someone instead of reinforcing the argument is no way to communicate. It seems to me that the reason that there is so much venom is that there is no agreement as to what the rules are to be. Both sides, left and right, feel they are being cheated because our elected officals have changed the rules so many times over the last sixty years and manipulated the system so well that the Constitution is no longer applicable. It is only in the way or given lip service by both parties. It is like a game of kickball in a school yard where the team on offense changes, manipulates, or ignores the original rules agreed to at the start of the game. There are some things that should be done by the Feds and things that are not theirs to do. Anything NOT expressly authorizied by the Constitution should not even be discussed at the Federal level. We have the rule of law. But we are spinning out of control under the rule man. Please get past blind party politics and party blame and embrace the founders view of our Goverment and its strictly limited role in our individual lives.

LOL.Can we dispense, once and for all, with the "embrace the founders" bullshit? Why is it that everyone who wants to embrace the founders thinks the founders set us all up to be exploited mercilessly by the moneyed interests in some sort of dikensonian death match? Where are the reminders of the words "we the people" and "domestic prosperity"?

While I understand that the constitution is somewhat open to interpretation, I believe the overall vibe is people-centric, not money-centric. What I read is something intended to protect the people from government by making THEM the government. The current system of corporate influence is a perversion of their vision. Corporations were never intended to be people. Citizens united was the crowning corporate jewel in the constitution's grave stone.

But now, conservatives, who have architected the overthrow of democracy, want to pretend to give a crap about the constitution? That's a good one...

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

No attacking fellow members on the board, please.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Earth's credit card has been maxed out!

If Earth's resources were a credit card, we have already maxed out our entire allocation for this year. The think thank Global Footprint Network announced that August 19th was “Earth Overshoot Day,” meaning that all the resources we use after that day exceed what our planet can produce in a single year.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system