It's easy for someone living in the United States (as I see you do from your profile) to say "the price has to be paid sometime".  You live in a country that can afford the change.  If some all powerful being/alien/government enforced your mythical changes tomorrow you know what would happen in the US?  We'd figure it out.  We'd adjust.  You'd still have smartphones and plenty of food and great healthcare and, probably, a job and certainly consistent power.  If you're a 1st worlder this change screws with the fringes of your life most likely.  You have less disposable income, maybe eat out a little less or get a new smartphone less often.  You travel less often or can't drive as often because you can't afford as much fuel for your car (whatever that fuel is).  It probably messes with geopolitical stability some, so maybe there is more political tension in the future between the US and it's adversaries.  

What if you're in the developing world?  This change fucks you.  Completely.  You're quality of life trajectory, and that of your kids and grandkids, just flat lined because you're country can't afford these newfangled changes.  You're country with no stability, no real power grid, no government able to protect expensive sites just lost any hope it had of dragging itself into the modern world.  

That's the whole point of waiting.  A few more decades and the technology will be cheap.  Right now, it's not.  Unless you let 3rd world countries stay with the status quo and if you're going to do that, what's the point of changing anything at all?  

This is the same old rich 1st world progressive magic bullet that sounds good on the surface, but the moment you bother to look below the surface it all falls apart in unintended consequences and unexpected costs.  

All for a "coming catastrophe" that no one can put a number on, no one can put a timeline on, no one can say what percentage of the catastrophe is actually caused by man and no one can say that we can actually have some measurable impact on improving the problem, if it exists.  

Sign me up.  I'd much rather disrupt the world economy and screw over the developing world than wait the few decades until the technologies that will essentially make this problem vanish are ubiquitous through the normal progress of technology.  Anything is fine with me, as long as we do something (because inaction is always BAD!) and as long as it makes me feel better about myself.

Er. That's  not actually how the constitution works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

People don't just get to vote themselves whatever they like. It's a government, not a wishing well. 

I was speaking in terms of both federal and more local governments, not just federal laws.

Also, given how broadly the Elastic Clause has been interpreted, its more or less how the federal government works in the practical sense.

I mean, the government just mandated that Congress can force you to buy health insurance from a private company and it got upheld.  You can stretch that Elastic Clause pretty far in practice.

Read things like the IPCC report.  These are exactly the kinds of things that that sort of report does.

Sure you can. A 2ppm/year increase in CO2 is a slow-moving trainwreck like no other.

The only real question is, do you want to pay for averting a far-away disaster now, or are you selfish and do you want future generations to pay for it.

The IPPC doesn't really predict any kind of disaster. It predicts a conservative 1 degree rise in (average) temperature, I don't think that will blow anyone's mind, not even mine.

The real problem is, whether you want to go on like this for 100 more years and find this increase acceptable and that you hope that the 22nd century people will take action. That some big hope you have. You take the risk that in the 22nd century, people will still think the same as we in the 21st century - that there's nothing to worry, that another 1 degree rise in temperatue is no problem. And so on.

In other words, do you trust future generations after we've shown them for 100 years that we don't give a shit and that there is nothing to worry about ?

Exactly like we have 100 years of steady increase of CO2 level and temperature to look back on and nobody gives a damn?

Or do you want to show them how one can take responsibility and how one can prevent a disaster on a timeline and scale that we've rarely witnessed before in the entire history of our planet.

As far as I'm concerned, the potential for disaster is mind-blowing, I don't trust future generations that they'll make the right choice, I would prefer that people wake up and take action sooner than later.

You and Brad keep on saying "taking money away from other people" or "using other peoples money", but that's what taxes are. Whether it's to buy new military equipment, subsidize school lunches or bridge maintenance.

I guess my question is: when are taxes just taxes, and at what point do taxes transform into "taking money away from people".

From your perspective, what's the break point?

I'm not sure where to begin here. It doesn't help a debate if you interpret everything your opponent says in the most extreme way. You keep on insisting that I'm some sort of radical comminist bent on anarchy. Yo also keep on insisting that I want to give cars away and take your after tax income and redistribute it to the masses. That is simply not the case.**

From your anti-dog eat dog law comment, you appear to be against private sector subsidies of any kind. You believe that a business should be able to stand on its own merrits without gov't assiatnce.

I agree with you on both points, but that is not how how the current system works. There are plently of profitable private sector industries that are addicted to their gov't subsidy. I would love to see the plug pulled on that, but I don't have the money to hire a lobbyst.

**If you think I'm a commie..well, everything is relative. I could provide you a link to a forum where about 1/3 of the members are so far to the left they are swimming in the deep end. I get a headache every time I try to have a discussion with them.

You are welcome to believe that, but you will probably have to move to another country.  And, as far as I'm aware of, none of those other countries will be first world countries.

The US's Constitution gives the government the power to tax, and it expressly tells the government to provide for the welfare of the people, so you have serious objections to the document which defines our government.

Nope.  I think that a HELL of a lot of progressives want to cut spending to stuff like defense and use that money elsewhere.  Progressives also generally want to do things like get rid of fossil fuel subsidies in favor of subsidies on renewables.

So you are just demonstrably wrong.  Progressives consistently and repeatedly propose solutions other than higher taxes.

Eh, a lot of progressive changes have been overwhelming successful.

I mean, lets look at the monster one: socialized medicine.  Go out there and find a single recent poll that shows that people in a country with socialized medicine want to switch back to a less progressive medical system.  I mean, the Canadian polls that I saw had a 90%+ preference for their system of the US's.

Or, let's see a politician try and run for president on a platform of abolishing Medicare.  I bet that would go over well.

I'm certainly not saying that all progressive ideas are good ideas, but it is pretty easy to demonstrate in hindsight that a lot of the progressive changes of the past have been largely successful.  Or, you can look at the more progressive European countries, many of which have people who earn more on average, work substantially less on average, and have higher happiness measures on average (that would be most of northern Europe, which is quite progressive).  A lot of that stuff does end up working.  Not all of it by any means (some of the more liberal European stuff is pretty crazy IMO), but some of it anyway.

and now back to the feature presentation...

"A Convenient Lack of Reliable Data" 

Do you have to act like that?

Thank you for giving me your gracious permission to have my opinion. 

Also, if you think that "promote the general welfare" means give money to other people "welfare" in the modern sense then you need to do some really basic research on constitutional history.  You keep making these quips about the constitution when it's pretty clear you know very little about it.  Use Google. It's your friend.  

Since some people seem to be confused as to what the federal government is legally allowed to do here is a list:

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2. To borrow on the credit of the United States;
3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Redistributed money even for services one might never personally use isn't necessarily a bad thing (depends on what of course).

In Canada for instance we are all about the redistribution of monies (taxes).  While that same focus on redistribution certainly doesn't allow for excellence in any one category it does however ensure that (in general) our population isn't going hungry, is well-educated and reasonably healthy.  These days (in hard economic times) it is more evident than ever that those 3 things are what help a nation through the tough times.  I for one am glad I live in a nation leaning towards 'collectivism' as opposed to individualism.