_id
stringlengths 37
39
| text
stringlengths 3
37.1k
|
|---|---|
d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00004-000 | Ban makes parents' job easier. |
d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00027-000 | Youths can test/find their own identity in violent games. |
d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00037-000 | Paul Boxer. "It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games." NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: "A few years ago, on Long Island, six teenagers were arrested after a crime spree involving break-ins, a violent mugging and a carjacking attempt. According to what the teens told authorities, they had been trying to live out the life of Niko Belic. Ever heard of him? He is the protagonist in the wildly popular video game 'Grand Theft Auto IV.' What the teens did represents one of the worst-case scenarios imagined by those who advocate for government to limit the sale of violent video games to minors. Fortunately, such scenarios are very few and very far between. And Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision preventing the state of California from instituting a ban on the sale of such games to minors. The decision was steeped in legal precedent concerning free speech and censorship. But make no mistake: The Supreme Court’s decision in no way negates or devalues the decades of scientific research that have been conducted demonstrating that the consumption of violent media leads to increases in aggressive and anti-social behavior." |
641065db-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00073-000 | Stephanie Luke. "Sex education a must". The Daily Collegian. 4 Dec. 2008 - "It is stupid to assume that sexual education, educating people how to avoid unplanned pregnancy, would cause unplanned pregnancy." |
641065db-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00046-000 | Comprehensive sex ed and forms of contraception such as Plan B make it appear acceptable to have rampant sex without taking full responsibility for unintended pregnancies, among other possible consequences. |
54bd63d7-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00038-000 | Alternative election methods such as Approval voting, Condorcet voting, and even Instant Runoff Voting cannot be properly implemented at the Presidential level if the Electoral College remains in place. This is unfortunate, given that these methods are a marked improvement on the current systems. |
54bd63d7-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00024-000 | In any proper democracy, the winner of any election should be the person with the most votes. Yet, three times in America's history, a president has been elected that did not receive the popular vote. This means that every vote is not equal and that the popular voice of the people was not heard, which generally is undemocratic. |
54bd63d7-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00043-000 | A Washington Post poll found in 2000 after the Bush victory that 6 out of 10 would prefer a popular vote system.[1] |
54bd63d7-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00000-000 | A nation-wide popular vote risks recounts and crises of legitimacy. |
8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00091-000 | "Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections." Stanford Daily Editorial. May 12th, 2010: "The open system also empowers voters to make more of a choice than simply picking their party’s best candidate, allowing for the voter to better evaluate the race overall. [...] An open primary system will open dialogue across party lines and, hopefully, lead to candidates being elected based on qualifications rather than just party affiliations." |
8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00046-000 | Open primaries foster nuance and choice within a party. |
8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00016-000 | Voter manipulation risk too small to outweigh open primary pros |
8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00048-000 | Open primaries produce competitive, substantive general elections |
8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00035-000 | Open primaries lower turnout by eliminating clear choices |
dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00053-000 | Nonrenewable fossil fuels are inherently primitive and destructive to the environment. They involve extracting a fuel source from the ground instead of extracting it from renewable sources. This is unsustainable and should be avoided. |
dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00010-000 | Natural gas engines are as efficient as gasoline engines. |
dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00042-000 | Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases |
72f5af83-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00046-000 | People can not always be trusted to make the right choices |
dabcc311-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00022-000 | Banning 18-year-olds from drinking is age discrimination |
dabcc311-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00095-000 | Sean Flynn. "Should The Drinking Age Be Lowered?". Parade.com. 12 Aug. 2007 - A 2005 ABC News poll, taken on the 21st anniversary of the 1984 federal law that forced states to raise their drinking ages, found that 78% of the public opposed a lower age. A 2007 Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans oppose lowering the drinking age to 18.[6] |
1246b58c-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00007-000 | Taxes are not enough; national service is a good idea. |
1246b58c-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00053-000 | People could train as engineers, IT specialists, drivers, chefs etc. In the long-run this will reduce unemployment, lower the crime rate and help the economy.[2] |
2d219ef-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00026-000 | Corn ethanol is merely a part of the equation in replacing oil. |
2d219ef-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00042-000 | Corn ethanol cannot compete with oil: |
2d219ef-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00065-000 | It is not feasible to produce the amount of corn required to make the fuel a viable alternative to oil or a serious supplier of energy. |
e5ccda7-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00082-000 | That marijuana is herbal does not mean it is safe |
e5ccda7-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00132-000 | No matter what research you read of who's stories you listen to, the fact remains that the bad or good aspects of marijuana use are above all else subjective, and in essence an oppinion. It is simply a judgement call. Each side has it's oppinion on the benefits and/or negative ramifications of marijuana use. With marijuana use there are the same pitfalls as any other life activity... bad judgement yeilds bad results... but our ability to choose for ourselves MUST be preserved. There are MUCH more severe social ramifications from a government that is allowed to illegalize ANYTHING solely on the basis of maybes. They cannot illegalize fast food even though it is WIDELY accepted that it is bad for you. They cannot illegalize swimming because you MAY be attacked by a shark. They may not illegalize ANYTHING on the notion that it MAY cause harm. If that were allowed, then any opinion may be made law. |
e5ccda7-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00073-000 | Marijuana is only unhealthy or risky when abused. |
e5ccda7-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00107-000 | Who can say that marijuana use is "worth it" or "not worth it"? Many individuals strongly believe that marijuana use has a "mind expanding" effect that makes the health costs worth it. Other disagree. But can the government or anyone conclude for us all that "it's not worth it"? No. With so much subjectiveness involved, marijuana should not be illegal. |
e5ccda7-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00108-000 | The biggest issue with marijuana relates to the health problems it creates, with lung problems, "addiction", short-term memory loss, energy loss, and even the risk of schizophrenia. The social costs are little different than those with alcohol or cigarettes. Therefore, it should be treaty as a health issue, rather than a crime issue. |
d2f4b1cd-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00188-000 | See Debate: Homosexuality Sample argument: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed." |
d2f4b1cd-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00009-000 | Legalizing gay marriage will incite attacks on Churches |
36da01fa-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00051-000 | "Don't ban four loco in N.H." The New Hampshire, Editorial. November 12th, 2010: "Don't take away individual rights. If you want to discourage something, educate us on its risks. It makes more sense to convince us to follow a practice than to force it upon us (particularly in this case, when it's not that hard to get across the state's border). Education is the way to go. We gladly published a guest op-ed on Tuesday from UNH Health Services, and we believe the media's coverage has made the risks obvious." |
36da01fa-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00022-000 | Not enough evidence that caffeinated alcohol drinks are safe. |
36da01fa-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00008-000 | More important priorities than banning alcoholic energy drinks. |
36da01fa-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00025-000 | Caffeinated alcohol drinks are generally unsafe. |
36da01fa-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00048-000 | Four Loco can cause death by alcohol poisoning, and can cause altered and aggressive behavior. Cigarettes, while very damaging to one's health over the long-term, cannot cause such immediate death nor mind-altering and aggressive behavior. |
36da01fa-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00018-000 | Combination of caffeine/alcohol not inherently unsafe. |
89e52114-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00153-000 | It is morally unacceptable to leave the health care of millions of American who cannot afford to pay insurance to the hands of the few rare doctors and charity health care services. Also, charity health services would not have enough equipment and funds to treat expensive, life-threatening diseases like cancers. |
4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00105-000 | John Holahan and Linda Blumberg. "Is the Public Plan Option a Necessary Part of Health Reform?" Urban Institute: "there is considerable variation in health insurance products sold, and consumers have great difficulty in making price and quality comparisons. This is especially true in the private nongroup insurance market, but is increasingly true in commercial group insurance as well. [...] The products offered by sellers in insurance and hospital markets are complex and difficult to understand and evaluate. It is almost impossible to compare prices of either insurance products or services provided by hospitals and other health providers." [The status quo, therefore, offers little "reasoned choice". Simple public insurance would make it easier on consumers.] |
4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00111-000 | President Barack Obama said in March of 2009: "[Public insurance] gives consumers more choices, and it helps keep the private sector honest, because there’s some competition out there."[3] |
4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00093-000 | Government-run health insurance restricts doctor/patient choices. |
a12d3cd9-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00037-000 | It is the failure of Arab states to incorporate Palestinians into their societies by offering legal status (with the exception of Jordan) which keeps the Palestinian refugees in their current limbo, not Israeli policy. |
a12d3cd9-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00042-000 | Some opponents argue that if all or a large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants were to implement a 'right of return', it would make Arabs the majority within Israel and Jews an ethnic minority. They contend that this 'amounts to abolishing the Jewish people's right to self determination' and would 'mean eradicating Israel.' |
a12d3cd9-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00012-000 | Unjust for Jews to be able to emigrate, but not Palestinians return. |
a12d3cd9-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00043-000 | The majority of Israelis find a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable, pointing out that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would eventually cause Israel's Jewish population to become a minority, thus undermining Israel's status as a Jewish state. |
bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00093-000 | The death penalty is not cruel |
bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00188-000 | Pro Death Penalty Webpage - Abolitionists also hold the notion that criminals do not fear death because they do not take time to think about the consequences of their acts. If that were true, then I wonder how police officers manage to arrest criminals without killing them. When a policeman holds a criminal at gunpoint and tells him to get on the ground, the criminal will comply fully in the vast majority of of these cases. Why would they do that unless they were afraid of the lethal power of the gun? It is because regardless of what abolitionists claim, criminals are not immune to fear! It is a common misconception to believe that fear is a thought process that has to be worked out with a piece of paper. It's not! It is an instinct that automatically kicks in when one is faced with lethal force! The examples below should confirm that point. |
bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00011-000 | The expression an "eye for an eye" is a prescription for proportional justice and capital punishment |
bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00193-000 | Thomas R. Eddlem. "Ten anti-death penalty fallacies". The New American. 3 June 2002 - "If capital punishment teaches that it's permissible to kill, do prison sentences teach that it's permissible to hold someone against his will, and do fines teach that it's permissible to steal? In actuality, this fallacy confuses killing the innocent with punishing the guilty. To punish the guilty via the death penalty is not to condone the shedding of innocent blood. Just the opposite, in fact, since capital punishment sends a strong message that murder and other capital crimes will not be tolerated." |
bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00075-000 | The death penalty is uncharacteristic of a decent society |
bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00057-000 | Life in prison deters crime/murder as well as the death penalty |
c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00033-000 | Illegal immigrants enjoy equal protection under US law |
c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00011-000 | Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants is economically beneficial |
c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00036-000 | Deporting millions of illegal immigrants from America would result in a humanitarian crisis |
c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00045-000 | Offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants provides legal status to individuals that have knowingly broken US laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act clearly states that illegal aliens should be deported. These long-standing laws must be upheld. Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses clearly violates these laws and the impression that the United States is capable of enforcing them. It also undermines the notion of rewarding law abiding citizens and punishing those that break the law. Why should illegal immigrants be allowed to get away with their illegal acts. US citizens (not illegal aliens) are not afforded this luxury of forgiveness in the face of the law. Therefore, the proposition is an unwarranted and immoral concession that undermines the consistency of US law. |
c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00031-000 | Illegal aliens with new driver's licenses should not be trusted to respect laws |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00031-000 | Open carry deters; most criminals are rational. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00062-000 | Paul Hager. "Why I Carry. Concealed versus open carry." November 19th, 2000: "One concern I have about concealed versus open carry is a purely political and psychological one. Given all of the anti-gun propaganda, coupled with the fact that the average person is unaware of how many friends and neighbors carry a concealed handgun, the right to carry for self-defense becomes ripe for a "counter-reformation" to roll back the gains that have been made. [...] Prejudice is based upon ignorance and fear, and stereotypes are impervious to everything except confrontation with reality." |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00017-000 | Open carry is an opportunity to express individual rights. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00033-000 | One can reveal a concealed gun in order to deter a criminal. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00003-000 | Concealed weapons can be very comfortable. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00041-000 | An extension of the above argument is that while an open carry gun might be slightly faster on the draw (perhaps a second or two), a concealed carry gun offers the element of surprise, which buys an individual plenty of time to choose the right opportunity to draw the gun on the unsuspecting assailant. In addition, with an open carry gun, the assailant knows exactly what the person is reaching for, so will move faster to try to overcome them. With a concealed carry gun, the person to act casually and inconspicuously while reach for gun, perhaps saying something like, "OK, I'm reaching for my wallet." There are many situations in which, therefore, a concealed carry weapon buys more time than an open carry weapon. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00011-000 | Open carrying helps foster politeness between citizens. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00004-000 | Open-carry laws could help reduce costs of private security. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00027-000 | Concealed weapons are harder to draw against attackers. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00050-000 | The right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that "bearing" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00035-000 | Paul Hager. "Why I Carry. Concealed versus open carry." November 19th, 2000: "there is some evidence of a societal benefit from carrying concealed. That benefit is called the "halo effect" or, for the economically inclined, a positive externality of deterrence. This benefit accrues from the fact that some number of people will be carrying at any given moment but no one, included a would-be assailant, knows who is carrying and who is not. Criminals, though socially deviant, are not stupid and can be expected to come up with an assessment of their risk of encountering an armed citizen. The greater the perceived risk, the greater the inhibition to act and, therefore, the more the would-be criminal is deterred. This means that people who don't carry a gun or would never carry a gun, nonetheless are protected somewhat by the deterrent effect of those who do. If everyone who had a gun only carried openly and no one carried concealed, it would make those not carrying openly prime targets." |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00028-000 | Concealed weapons buy time to draw gun. |
219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00029-000 | Concealed carry preserves element of surprise against threats |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00043-000 | "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "even more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving is fumbling in a pocket or handbag for a ringing phone while travelling at 100kmh on the motorway." |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00014-000 | Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00052-000 | "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now." |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00060-000 | The social benefits of cell phones are not significantly curtailed if people are required to pull over to talk on their phones. |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00068-000 | Lauren Weinstein. "Cell-Phone Ban Not a Good Call". Wired. September 12th, 2002 - "Most politicians know that trying to ban hands-free cell-phone use would mean cops trying to pull over everyone they see mumbling to themselves." |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00054-000 | Utah Pscycologists warn against cell phone use while driving. Much in the same way that you put yourself and others at risk by driving drunk, the same occurs when driving while using a cell phone.[5] |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00055-000 | These include eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimizes mobile phone users under all conditions, while completely ignoring many other causes of accidents. |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00041-000 | Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.[1] Such cell phone use has led, according to some estimates, to the death of roughly 2,600 drivers annually.[2] |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00011-000 | Careless driving laws are inadequate; cell phone ban is necessary. |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00042-000 | "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - In Britain, a study a few years ago, using a driving simulator, found that motorists using hand-held phones took 30 per cent longer to react to hazards than motorists driving under the influence of alcohol and 50 per cent longer than drivers not under the influence. |
240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00058-000 | "Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show." LA Times. 30 June 2008 - "'And you don't get any better with practice,' Strayer adds. In his lab, subjects who reported they use a cellphone a lot when driving 'show every bit as much impairment' than those who do so infrequently." |
e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00001-000 | Responsible jobs act has more spending now, taxes later. |
e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00054-000 | "A man and a plan." The Economist Buttonwood Notebook. September 9th, 2011: "There is no guarantee that companies will spend the money on such things. Some might use it to pay down debt; others might spend the money on m&a or buy-backs, Richard Koo's book about the Japanese crisis, The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics, details how, despite near-zero interest rates, companies focused on repaying debt. There is good news here; the general health of the corporate sector is sound so they might be tempted to use this extra cash to expand payrolls. But by being politically canny in the way he framed this package, the President may have put his re-election hopes in the hands of the CEOs of the S&P 500." |
e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00017-000 | American Jobs Act cuts payroll tax, relieves working families. |
e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00040-000 | Motoko Rich. "Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur." New York Times. September 9th, 2011: "David Catalano, who helped found Modea, a digital advertising company in Blacksburg, Va., said that he was wary of the president’s pledge to ask the 'wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.' His company was organized as an S Corporation, in which profits are passed through to shareholders, so it would face higher taxes under the president’s proposal, he said. He added: 'My partner and I have reinvested 100 percent of the profits that our agency has made over the last five years back into the company. If the government takes a bigger share of that from me, it directly impedes my ability to grow the agency.'" |
e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00045-000 | "A Good Jobs Program." The New York Times Editorial. September 13th, 2011: "It is also fair tax policy. Under current law, the largest subsidies go to people who need them least — for such things as mortgage interest and charitable giving — because the value of tax breaks rises as income and tax rates rise. Capping such breaks helps to ensure that subsidies are focused on Americans who need them most." |
d6155d38-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00053-000 | Hydropower is more proven/reliable than other renewables |
d6155d38-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00060-000 | Coal is the greatest source of electricity in the world. In places like the United States, it constitutes over 50% of the electric energy supply. It is also one of the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases and, therefore, contributors to global warming. Replacing coal, therefore, is one of the greatest priorities in the fight against global warming. Hydrolectric power, as a primary electricity supplier around the world, can act decisively as a substitute to coal electricity generation. Because hydroelectric emits 0 greenhouse gases, it is a highly valuable substitute for coal, and thus a major tool in the fight against global warming. |
69c8cd12-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00025-000 | It would anger nearly all school children. |
251db9fe-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00037-000 | Electric cars, which get their electricity from renewable sources such as wind or solar power, are the future. They are far more efficient than cellulosic fuel processes, converting energy much more directly from wind turbines and solar panels into the drive-train of the vehicle. Growing plants on lands, harvesting them, chopping them up, breaking them down with enzymes into ethanol, transporting them to gas-stations, and then burning them as fuel in the end-use vehicle is a far less efficient process than transporting electrons over wires directly from wind-turbines to homes or electric powering stations for electric cars. And, cellulosic ethanol degrades local air quality with non-C02 emissions and entails a variety of other risks (like deforestation) that do not surround electric vehicles. |
251db9fe-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00032-000 | Kelly Tiller, director of external operations for the University of Tennessee’s office of bioenergy programs asks, what are the alternatives? "There is no perfect solution. This is a sustainable bridge while we develop new technologies."[1] |
251db9fe-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00033-000 | Many critics of cellulosic ethanol say things like, "if all of the cars in the US had to rely on cellulosic ethanol, all of the available farmland would have to be dedicated to switchgrass and this would devastate forests and the farming economy." But, obviously, the idea is only to make cellulosic ethanol a part of a large package of solutions, even within just the transportation industry. The plan is not to switch the entire transportation industry onto cellulosic ethanol alone. This is ludicrous and a strawman for opponents to beat down. Fully electric, hybrid, clean diesel, and hydrogen vehicles will also be in the mix. Cellulosic ethanol will merely be an important contribution to this diverse mix that will help reduce foreign oil dependencies and fight climate change. |
251db9fe-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00036-000 | Robert Bryce. "The Cellulosic Ethanol Mirage: Verenium and Aventine Are Circling the Drain." Energy Tribune. Mar. 30, 2009: "Despite the hype, cellulosic ethanol is no closer to commercial viability than it was when Midgley first began talking about it back in 1921. Turning switchgrass, straw or corn cobs into sizable volumes of motor fuel is remarkably inefficient. It is devilishly difficult to break down cellulose into materials that can be fermented into alcohol. And even if that process were somehow made easier, its environmental effects have also been called into question. A September 2008 study on alternative automotive fuels done by Jan Kreider, a professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Colorado, and Peter S. Curtiss, a Boulder-based engineer, found that the production of cellulosic ethanol required about 42 times as much water and emitted about 50 percent more carbon dioxide than standard gasoline. Furthermore, Kreider and Curtiss found that, as with corn ethanol, the amount of energy that could be gained by producing cellulosic ethanol was negligible." |
c2445951-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000 | Jews have historical right to return to West Bank |
cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00069-000 | Lawrence Kotlikoff. "Privatizing social security the right way." Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: "As described above, the U.S. Social Security System is badly broke and is treating the vast majority of its current contributors very badly. Privatization is far from a painless panacea, but it does represent an opportunity to resolve, once and for all, most of the System's financial woes and to rationalize a program that is intragenerationally as well as intergenerationally highly inequitable, replete with inefficiencies and economic distortions, and extraordinarily uninformative about the benefits it is providing in exchange for its mandatory contributions." |
cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00024-000 | Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services. |
cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00077-000 | Stephen Dick. "Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone." CNHI News Service. November 19th, 2010: "the American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare. With Republicans back in power, when it comes time to cut spending, they'll be looking at Social Security until the American people tell them to back off. " |
cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00047-000 | Eliot Spitzer. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. February 4th, 2009: "And that fact makes clear the fallacy of the next argument often proffered by privatization supporters: They claim that the flow of dollars into the private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. The problem is that for every dollar put into the market through a private account, the government would have to borrow a dollar in the market to cover existing payouts. Thus the supposed benefit is entirely eliminated, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero." |
cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00055-000 | Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs." |
cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00010-000 | Privatization is the least bad option. |