Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 12/08/08 4:15 pm:
No, I understand exactly what you are saying. I think your facts are wrong, your reasoning wrong, and your solution would be a drag on the economy. This is no surprise since you are a confirmed socialist and I believe in the free market.

Note, the current economic mess is rooted in government intervention.

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 12/08/08 8:09 pm:
Labman it is you who have the facts wrong, this mess is a complete failure of the free market and lack of regulation. People cannot be expected to act reasonably when presented with an unbridled opportunity to make money.

As to your suggestion that no money should be put into climate change because we are at the bottom of a sun spot cycle that flies in the face of the need to deal effectively with the oil supply cycle which twice in 5o years has caused serious economic disruption. The times are changing and the market is a cumbersome mechanism which doesn't respond easily to change. Those economies which respond to changing realities will have the least disruption in this financial crisis and I point to Australia and suggest you observe how a balance between market and regulation along with government restructuring has produced an economy which is not in free fall

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/12/08 12:24 pm:
As to your suggestion that no money should be put into climate change because we are at the bottom of a sun spot cycle that flies in the face of the need to deal effectively with the oil supply cycle which twice in 5o years has caused serious economic disruption.

If your making a case for conservation then why bring up the phoney global warming oooops I mean climate change canard. One would think conservation as a cause could stand on it's own.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/12/08 12:26 pm:
yes another failure of Bush government and capitalist greed

huh ? What I posted makes a case that too much government intervention and attempts at altruism caused the current crisis.

As for the Bush gvt. ;I don't give them a complete pass .Although they sent warning signals to Congress as early as 2002 .....their reaction to the crisis makes it difficult to make a distinction between them and the Democrats . But this crisis origins precedes the Bush administration by more than 2 decades.

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 12/12/08 9:19 pm:
Tom what do you mean sent signals to Congress, either they are the administration or they are not, what you are doing is confirming what I said the Failure of the Bush government, if they saw a problem not matter how long it had existed they should have acted but you confirm Bush was a lame duck for all of his presidency.

The climate change cunard as you put was in answer to a specific global cooling cunard and there are reasons to act which make sound economic sense such as getting our snouts out of the oil trough everything is interlinked, none of our problems stand alone

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/13/08 10:30 am:
our system runs differently . The branches of government are separate . The President cannot compel Congress to do anything .Even with having a small minority ;there are certain moves a minority can make to defeat executive initiative.

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 12/13/08 8:59 pm:
Tom nothing is certain in our system either, in fact most of our governments govern quite successfully with a hostile Senate, they bring forth legislation, they debate it, they change it and sometimes it does go forward, sometimes it fails but they hold the debate, it's called democracy. The last time we didn't have a hostile Senate and the government got its way with industrial relations it ultimately proved disasterous for them because their excesses went unchecked