The Reagan "Revolution": A Myth Exploded

[JohnStOnge]

Here's a document on historical tax bracket rates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6MkESn1v1w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just kind of look around in the 1970s through 1981 then on through 1989. Now, no President actually raises or cuts taxes. Congress has to do that. But to the extent that Reagan influenced the situation the idea that he, on balance, did not cut taxes is ridiculous. It really is. What happened during his administration in terms of net reduction in tax rates is pretty dramatic.

[JohnStOnge]

I think my favorite Reagan quote is that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

From EPA:

Trees and plants release more than just oxygen into the atmosphere as a result of photosynthesis: They also release a variety of gases that contribute to air pollution. In fact, the planet's vegetation accounts for about two-thirds of the pollutants known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted globally.

http://www.epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/scin ... lution.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's probably what he was referring to. Trees do indeed emit pollutants A LOT of it terms of volume/mass. Organisms emit what we call "pollutants." I deal with water quality and not air quality but I can tell you based on 30+ years of experience that an AWFUL lot of what is reported in the media as pollution is due to non human organism activity. Would be there if we'd never have evolved. Of course then it wouldn't be "pollution" because we wouldn't be around to call it that.

[∞∞∞]

I think my favorite Reagan quote is that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

From EPA:

Trees and plants release more than just oxygen into the atmosphere as a result of photosynthesis: They also release a variety of gases that contribute to air pollution. In fact, the planet's vegetation accounts for about two-thirds of the pollutants known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted globally.

http://www.epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/scin ... lution.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's probably what he was referring to. Trees do indeed emit pollutants A LOT of it terms of volume/mass. Organisms emit what we call "pollutants." I deal with water quality and not air quality but I can tell you based on 30+ years of experience that an AWFUL lot of what is reported in the media as pollution is due to non human organism activity. Would be there if we'd never have evolved. Of course then it wouldn't be "pollution" because we wouldn't be around to call it that.

I actually know that, yet they still don't cause as much pollution as automobiles do. Trees are almost exclusively closed loop systems while automobiles are not. The amount of waste produced by a car's life cycle, from planning to production to delivery to operation and continual maintenance (including the indirect costs of oil production) compared to the amount of pollution a tree will produce over its lifetime isn't even close. Additionally, trees reduce heat-island effects and water demand which further reduces pollution.

[houndawg]

-
A bad president gave us Reagan a man that loved his country
Lets hope that after this disaster of a president it can give rise to another great one
Good luck USA






Looks like 100% of the lefties on his site aren't proud and seems like they actually dislike the country

The Pew Research survey found that just 40% of so-called Solid Liberals “often feel proud to be American” while "60% say that characterization does not fit them."

http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/ ... elease.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blowing his nose on Old Glory.

[kalm]

I think my favorite Reagan quote is that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

From EPA:

Trees and plants release more than just oxygen into the atmosphere as a result of photosynthesis: They also release a variety of gases that contribute to air pollution. In fact, the planet's vegetation accounts for about two-thirds of the pollutants known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted globally.

http://www.epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/scin ... lution.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's probably what he was referring to. Trees do indeed emit pollutants A LOT of it terms of volume/mass. Organisms emit what we call "pollutants." I deal with water quality and not air quality but I can tell you based on 30+ years of experience that an AWFUL lot of what is reported in the media as pollution is due to non human organism activity. Would be there if we'd never have evolved. Of course then it wouldn't be "pollution" because we wouldn't be around to call it that.

You could slice that Beijing smog with a knife 100,000 years ago.

[JohnStOnge]

The amount of waste produced by a car's life cycle, from planning to production to delivery to operation and continual maintenance (including the indirect costs of oil production) compared to the amount of pollution a tree will produce over its lifetime isn't even close.

There are a lot more trees on this planet than there are automobiles. And it isn't even close.

[houndawg]

Here's a document on historical tax bracket rates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6MkESn1v1w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just kind of look around in the 1970s through 1981 then on through 1989. Now, no President actually raises or cuts taxes. Congress has to do that. But to the extent that Reagan influenced the situation the idea that he, on balance, did not cut taxes is ridiculous. It really is. What happened during his administration in terms of net reduction in tax rates is pretty dramatic.

The problem was that at the same time this was happening he was spending like a drunken sailor on the military and running up what was at the time history's largest debt. It really was.

[AZGrizFan]

Here's a document on historical tax bracket rates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6MkESn1v1w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just kind of look around in the 1970s through 1981 then on through 1989. Now, no President actually raises or cuts taxes. Congress has to do that. But to the extent that Reagan influenced the situation the idea that he, on balance, did not cut taxes is ridiculous. It really is. What happened during his administration in terms of net reduction in tax rates is pretty dramatic.

The problem was that at the same time this was happening he was spending like a drunken sailor on the military and running up what was at the time history's largest debt. It really was.

Seems rather miserly now, compared to the current occupant.

[HI54UNI]

Here's a document on historical tax bracket rates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6MkESn1v1w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just kind of look around in the 1970s through 1981 then on through 1989. Now, no President actually raises or cuts taxes. Congress has to do that. But to the extent that Reagan influenced the situation the idea that he, on balance, did not cut taxes is ridiculous. It really is. What happened during his administration in terms of net reduction in tax rates is pretty dramatic.

The problem was that at the same time this was happening he was spending like a drunken sailor on the military and running up what was at the time history's largest debt. It really was.

With the approval of a Democrat controlled House of Representatives during his entire 8 years in office.

[travelinman67]

The amount of waste produced by a car's life cycle, from planning to production to delivery to operation and continual maintenance (including the indirect costs of oil production) compared to the amount of pollution a tree will produce over its lifetime isn't even close.

There are a lot more trees on this planet than there are automobiles. And it isn't even close.

I've heard Trip's argument for years...Sierra Club is still selling it.

Wetland methane generation DWARFS total CO2 output (as a greenhouse gas), yet environmental groups focus their efforts targeting industrial production (fracking), rather than overall biogeochemical and photosynthetic consumption methods...

...not that it matters.

[travelinman67]

Here's a document on historical tax bracket rates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6MkESn1v1w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just kind of look around in the 1970s through 1981 then on through 1989. Now, no President actually raises or cuts taxes. Congress has to do that. But to the extent that Reagan influenced the situation the idea that he, on balance, did not cut taxes is ridiculous. It really is. What happened during his administration in terms of net reduction in tax rates is pretty dramatic.

The problem was that at the same time this was happening he was spending like a drunken sailor on the military and running up what was at the time history's largest debt. It really worked, though...ending the Cold War and saving the U.S. hundreds of billions, thus making Clinton appear a fiscally strong President.

FIFY

[kalm]

There are a lot more trees on this planet than there are automobiles. And it isn't even close.

I've heard Trip's argument for years...Sierra Club is still selling it.

Wetland methane generation DWARFS total CO2 output (as a greenhouse gas), yet environmental groups focus their efforts targeting industrial production (fracking), rather than overall biogeochemical and photosynthetic consumption methods...

...not that it matters.

Someone needs to make a bumper sticker that reads "Save the planet...ban the trees and the swamps"

[Cap'n Cat]

Bump for the newbies.....

[travelinman67]

Bump for the newbies.....

Wealthy narcissist

[Ibanez]

-
A bad president gave us Reagan a man that loved his country
Lets hope that after this disaster of a president it can give rise to another great one
Good luck USA






Looks like 100% of the lefties on his site aren't proud and seems like they actually dislike the country

Blowing his nose on Old Glory.

Or kissing it. If he was blowing his nose...wouldn't his nose be covered?

[Ibanez]

There are a lot more trees on this planet than there are automobiles. And it isn't even close.

I've heard Trip's argument for years...Sierra Club is still selling it.

Wetland methane generation DWARFS total CO2 output (as a greenhouse gas), yet environmental groups focus their efforts targeting industrial production (fracking), rather than overall biogeochemical and photosynthetic consumption methods...

...not that it matters.

Could the difference be one is natural and the other is man-made? I don't know, i'm just asking the question. I never heard once that tree's and algae are equal to or worse for our environment than automobile emissions.

[travelinman67]

I've heard Trip's argument for years...Sierra Club is still selling it.

Wetland methane generation DWARFS total CO2 output (as a greenhouse gas), yet environmental groups focus their efforts targeting industrial production (fracking), rather than overall biogeochemical and photosynthetic consumption methods...

...not that it matters.

Could the difference be one is natural and the other is man-made? I don't know, i'm just asking the question. I never heard once that tree's and algae are equal to or worse for our environment than automobile emissions.

Irrelevant

[Ibanez]

Could the difference be one is natural and the other is man-made? I don't know, i'm just asking the question. I never heard once that tree's and algae are equal to or worse for our environment than automobile emissions.

Irrelevant

Is it? From what I remember from science class, CO2 and O2 are both by consumed and by products of an ecosystem. I guess the real question is: Is plant based CO2 harmful to the environment?

[Ibanez]

I think my favorite Reagan quote is that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

From EPA:

Trees and plants release more than just oxygen into the atmosphere as a result of photosynthesis: They also release a variety of gases that contribute to air pollution. In fact, the planet's vegetation accounts for about two-thirds of the pollutants known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted globally.

http://www.epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/scin ... lution.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's probably what he was referring to. Trees do indeed emit pollutants A LOT of it terms of volume/mass. Organisms emit what we call "pollutants." I deal with water quality and not air quality but I can tell you based on 30+ years of experience that an AWFUL lot of what is reported in the media as pollution is due to non human organism activity. Would be there if we'd never have evolved. Of course then it wouldn't be "pollution" because we wouldn't be around to call it that.

Why are the byproducts labeled "pollutants"? are the harmful to anyone? Do they destroy an ecosystem or is it simply labeled such b/c we're human-centric beings and it's harmful to us?

[Ibanez]

From that link that JSO posted, it seems to me that man-made pollution exacerbates the "problem".

In the study, published in the May issue of Environmental Science &Technology, EPA researchers quantified for the first time how emissions from vehicles, industry and power plants interact with natural emissions from vegetation to change the composition and make-up of chemicals in the air.for the worse.

Scientists predict climate change will stimulate the growth of trees and plants and extend growing seasons, resulting in even more emissions from natural sources. By controlling man-made emissions, the impact of emissions from trees and plants may be reduced.

I find it quite interesting, although I admit that I don't follow climatology or pollution related news as closely as others might. But again, if the "pollution" is coming from vegetation, is it truly damaging to the ozone or the environment?

[travelinman67]

I will try to be respectful as possible...

...you should discontinue speaking Ibanez.

You have crossed into the "island tipping" realm of ignorance.

CO2 is a gaseous molecule. There is no difference between a CO2 molecule that comes from an automobile and one that comes from natural decay/oxidation.

Kinda like saying garbage from Disneyland is "better" than garbage from your home.

Slowly back away.

[Ibanez]

I will try to be respectful as possible...

...you should discontinue speaking Ibanez.

You have crossed into the "island tipping" realm of ignorance.

CO2 is a gaseous molecule. There is no difference between a CO2 molecule that comes from an automobile and one that comes from natural decay/oxidation.

Kinda like saying garbage from Disneyland is "better" than garbage from your home.

Slowly back away.

You're an ass. It's my hope you die alone. I admitted I don't know anything on the topic. Yet, you take the low road and act like little bitch. I never mentioned CO2 from a vehicle. I said emissions, which encompasses more that CO2. But that would require you reading instead of seeing someone's post and drawing your own conclusions. I never mentioned CO2 from a vehicle. For fucks sake.

[travelinman67]

Could the difference be one is natural and the other is man-made? I don't know, i'm just asking the question. I never heard once that tree's and algae are equal to or worse for our environment than automobile emissions.

Yup...I'm an ass.








Slowly back away.

[JohnStOnge]

CO2 is a gaseous molecule. There is no difference between a CO2 molecule that comes from an automobile and one that comes from natural decay/oxidation.

I don't think it affects your basic point in terms of effects but they do say there is some difference between CO2 naturally generated by plants and that generated by burning fossil fuel. It's an "isotope" thing. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... s-updated/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and go to the third paragraph to start reading about it.

I don't think they're saying it has different effects in terms of climate change though. Also I'm not even sure I buy what they're saying about being able to tell. I'd have to go take some Chemistry courses or something to find out.

[houndawg]

Blowing his nose on Old Glory.

Or kissing it. If he was blowing his nose...wouldn't his nose be covered?

He was firing a snot rocket.