This should help out the economy!

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Obama+shifts+budget+focus/1331436/story.html

But he's only been in office a few months, give the man a chance.

your glass is always half empty

Canadian news, eh?
Coal sands are one of the dirtiest, least efficient ways to get fossil fuel. The Canadians have been fighting a long time to keep it coming here...

Canadian news, eh?
Coal sands are one of the dirtiest, least efficient ways to get fossil fuel. The Canadians have been fighting a long time to keep it coming here...

The story didn't originate from the Canadian news, it came from Obamas budget.

The link was. I was setting the tone for why the Canadians are against it.
I'm not against Carbon Tax.

I'm not against Carbon Tax.

Thats a shocker. Help yourself to what's left in my wallet anytime.

By rolling back tax cuts for high income earners, the White House said it was "rebalancing the tax so that the wealthiest pay more" to offset health costs of needier Americans.

"We must make it a priority to give every single American quality, affordable health care," Obama said.

these wealthy americans get no stimulus money, they get no child tax credit - thats limited to those making less than 150K per coulple, everyone lese gets $1000 per child back in their pocket. Also by limiting the deducitons, they will have HIGHER taxable income. Thats in addition to their higher rates. Add up the fact that they have limited deductions, resulting in a higher base for tax, NO tax credits for children, NO stimulus rebates. These wealthy people get no government assistance, they will have to pay EVERY DIME of their childrens education. Every dime of elderly care for their aging parents. But Obama is goign to f**k these people for working hard while giving THEM NOTHING. This is insane. He and many of YOU scoffed during the debates when it was said he was redistibuting wealth. HE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By rolling back tax cuts for high income earners, the White House said it was "rebalancing the tax so that the wealthiest pay more" to offset health costs of needier Americans.

"We must make it a priority to give every single American quality, affordable health care," Obama said.

these wealthy americans get no stimulus money, they get no child tax credit - thats limited to those making less than 150K per coulple, everyone lese gets $1000 per child back in their pocket. Also by limiting the deducitons, they will have HIGHER taxable income. Thats in addition to their higher rates. Add up the fact that they have limited deductions, resulting in a higher base for tax, NO tax credits for children, NO stimulus rebates. These wealthy people get no government assistance, they will have to pay EVERY DIME of their childrens education. Every dime of elderly care for their aging parents. But Obama is goign to f**k these people for working hard while giving THEM NOTHING. This is insane. He and many of YOU scoffed during the debates when it was said he was redistibuting wealth. HE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then what is your solution to resolving the current economic situation - raise taxes for everyone equally? So the struggling family that hasn't seen a pay raise in 2 years because of the economy and faced with a rising cost of living should be hit with the same tax increases as the wealthy family who, if responsible with their money, should not have to be worried about losing their house or how they're going to put food on the table?

You can't get water from stone, but let's try and get more money from people who are already struggling.

You can't get water from stone, but let's try and get more money from people who are already struggling.

Good to see your coming around Johnny!
Now repeat after me..."It is our money and the government has more then enough, if they use it wisely."

Then what is your solution to resolving the current economic situation - raise taxes for everyone equally? So the struggling family that hasn't seen a pay raise in 2 years because of the economy and faced with a rising cost of living should be hit with the same tax increases as the wealthy family who, if responsible with their money, should not have to be worried about losing their house or how they're going to put food on the table?

You can't get water from stone, but let's try and get more money from people who are already struggling.

It's all rather fuzzy to me (maybe some in power want it to be) but it doesn't seem that the people who are worried about putting food on the table are the ones hit hard by the current economic situation. Nor are most who bought homes worried about losing them. And some, I don't know the number, I don't even know if its been broken down for us, or if I could believe it if it were, and some who are in danger of losing their home are living in one much better than mine. Actually, technically, they're not losing it, the bank owns it. It seems to me that there are a lot more people that are above my pay grade that are being hurt by current conditions than at or below it. Maybe, if raising taxes on wealthy people is the solution to the problem, why not, instead, because, surely MANY would undeservedly be getting a tax hike, instead just use stimulus money to pay off the debts of the relatively small sector of poor folks and let all the greedy crooks go under.

is (has been) at the root of many of our problems.......

take our dependence on oil for example

for how many decades have improvements to Automobiles
been ignored (suppressed) to maximize profit by the oil companies

Our electrical infrastructure is PATHETIC at best

Space age materials need to enter the mainstream

carbon nano-tube technology ALONE can re energize
our economy ...not to mention new battery technology

there's high tech insulation for martian lander's that could
vastly improve what we are using now....

and the use of ethanol has been a total failure -> worldwide

restrictions on BIOfuels for diesel engines needs radical modification...

and i like the Pickens plan for utilizing Natural GAS for
our tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g industry... plus the wind corridor out west
for wind turbines...

Americans are spending WAY to much money on Energy
which affects the price of all consumer goods.... :rolleyes:
for far too long

It's all rather fuzzy to me (maybe some in power want it to be) but it doesn't seem that the people who are worried about putting food on the table are the ones hit hard by the current economic situation. Nor are most who bought homes worried about losing them. And some, I don't know the number, I don't even know if its been broken down for us, or if I could believe it if it were, and some who are in danger of losing their home are living in one much better than mine. Actually, technically, they're not losing it, the bank owns it. It seems to me that there are a lot more people that are above my pay grade that are being hurt by current conditions than at or below it. Maybe, if raising taxes on wealthy people is the solution to the problem, why not, instead, because, surely MANY would undeservedly be getting a tax hike, instead just use stimulus money to pay off the debts of the relatively small sector of poor folks and let all the greedy crooks go under.

This is why I said "if responsible with their money." Some people will never be able to understand the term "living below your means." Those are the people that I don't feel bad for. The ones that bought "the most house they can afford" and took a little more on their mortgage to furnish the house.

It isn't going to benefit the country to take more money from the people that are struggling to put food on the table. Either their kid won't be able to go to college or they'll have to make other major sacrifices in order to survive. At the same token, the people that make $250,000+ should be able to handle an additional tax.

This country is financially f(*&ed at the moment. It's not a matter of the Republican's favorite term "redistribution of wealth." It is a matter of doing the only thing possible to pull the nose up before it crashed right into the ground.

My business has over $250,000+ in revenue. Even though most of that money is reinvested in the business, being an LLC I'm going to get hit with the increased taxes. Yes, it is going to hurt a bit but it's going to hurt even more when there are no customers any more. When people can't afford to travel for our events any more and my clients decided to throw in the towel.

So I guess that Buck thinks human carbon emissions are not contributing to global warming?

Hence the post?

So I guess that Buck thinks human carbon emissions are not contributing to global warming?

Hence the post?

Humans have no part in global warming. It is just a natural cycle of the Earth.

There... saved them from having to post it.

This is why I said "if responsible with their money." Some people will never be able to understand the term "living below your means." Those are the people that I don't feel bad for. The ones that bought "the most house they can afford" and took a little more on their mortgage to furnish the house.

It isn't going to benefit the country to take more money from the people that are struggling to put food on the table. Either their kid won't be able to go to college or they'll have to make other major sacrifices in order to survive. At the same token, the people that make $250,000+ should be able to handle an additional tax.

This country is financially f(*&ed at the moment. It's not a matter of the Republican's favorite term "redistribution of wealth." It is a matter of doing the only thing possible to pull the nose up before it crashed right into the ground.

My business has over $250,000+ in revenue. Even though most of that money is reinvested in the business, being an LLC I'm going to get hit with the increased taxes. Yes, it is going to hurt a bit but it's going to hurt even more when there are no customers any more. When people can't afford to travel for our events any more and my clients decided to throw in the towel.

I live in a poor neighborhood. I doubt if anybody in it pays a federal income tax. I don't know the actual numbers or even if it's true, but I've heard that 51% of those who receive some form of compensation, either employment, pension, Soc. Sec., etc., don't pay federal income tax. No one I know is having trouble putting food on the table. A lot of them eat more (not better) than me with food stamps. I doubt that any of them would be your clients under any circumstance. Those that are or would be probably do pay fed taxes and would be helped more by a tax cut rather than taxing a wealthier person more. I also don't know but have heard that the wealthiest 2% or 4% or some small number currently pay 40% of the fed income taxes. It just seems like some kind of failure in our "system" that whenever there is a supposed financial crisis the most brilliant thing we can think of is to tax the rich.

So I guess that Buck thinks human carbon emissions are not contributing to global warming?

Hence the post?

Timing is everything. This country has come a long way since the seventies pollutionwise. We don't need the Feds taxing companies for Obama's idea of what is reasonable. The EPA fines companies for levels above what is allowed already. This is a scam to collect money. After throwing trillions of dollars around in his first three months I assume that the deficit is no longer an issue.

Carbon credits = a total friggin scam. You would have to be an idiot or a drunk to buy into it.:rotf2:

Then what is your solution to resolving the current economic situation - raise taxes for everyone equally? So the struggling family that hasn't seen a pay raise in 2 years because of the economy and faced with a rising cost of living should be hit with the same tax increases as the wealthy family who, if responsible with their money, should not have to be worried about losing their house or how they're going to put food on the table?

You can't get water from stone, but let's try and get more money from people who are already struggling.

Johnny - you're misinformed. This higher tax is NOT to get us out of the current economic situation, it is to FUND healthcare and other programs Obama is targeting. Its part of the budget, not the bailout. There is a general misunderstanding on how money works that the Dems capitalize on. Put your politics a side and hear me out.
Since you dont have kids, you dont see it, here is a brief overview. For hard working people that want a better life for their kids, In order to pay for college for their kids most people need two incomes in a family, thus they need some form of daycare to take care of the kids before and after work - cha-ching! Tens of thousands each year - AND THAT HELPS THE ECONOMY BY PAYING DAYCARE SALARIES, whihc means more tax for the governement!. A good thing.
Because the have two jobs, they make more money and thus pay more taxes, fair enough. But since they make more money, they get no benefits. If they make over 150K per couple (taxable income) they dont get to take the $1000 tax credit (and this is under Bush, not Obamas fault) . If you have 3 kids, thats 3000 of actual CASH you dont get! Lets say the Dad takes a big risk and starts his own business, his salary is now $200k per year. He works nights, weekends - he sacrifices for his family because he wants a better life for them. His wife still needs to work since sending 3 kids to college will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. His wife makes 60k per year. CHA CHING - well guess what? That now means they make 260K per year. Hey! THEY ARE RICH!!! It doesnt matter that they pay daycare for the 3 kids, doesnt matter that the have to fund their childrens education. Now, they will pay more taxes! And not just a higher rate. Their itemized deductions will be reduced, thus raising their taxable income ! Bottom line - by trying to fund their own life, they get screwed.
So -you ask how then do we fund government initiatives? How about helping this family? How about more money (ie; their OWN money) in their pockets so they can take their kids to Disney (helps the economy) take the kids to Chuckie Cheese (helps the economy) open a 529 to save for college (helps the economy) enroll the kids in gymnastics (helps the economy) , buy a new volvo (helps the economy) take the kids to a science museum (helps the economy)
See what Im saying. This is no politcal rhetoric, no Limbaugh replublican crap. Its the opinion of someone who works with people like this and who see these situations all the time.

But who will pay for the ones that don't want to work two jobs? or one job ?

Where is your compassion?

Johnny - you're misinformed. This higher tax is NOT to get us out of the current economic situation, it is to FUND healthcare and other programs Obama is targeting. Its part of the budget, not the bailout. There is a general misunderstanding on how money works that the Dems capitalize on. Put your politics a side and hear me out.
Since you dont have kids, you dont see it, here is a brief overview. For hard working people that want a better life for their kids, In order to pay for college for their kids most people need two incomes in a family, thus they need some form of daycare to take care of the kids before and after work - cha-ching! Tens of thousands each year - AND THAT HELPS THE ECONOMY BY PAYING DAYCARE SALARIES, whihc means more tax for the governement!. A good thing.
Because the have two jobs, they make more money and thus pay more taxes, fair enough. But since they make more money, they get no benefits. If they make over 150K per couple (taxable income) they dont get to take the $1000 tax credit (and this is under Bush, not Obamas fault) . If you have 3 kids, thats 3000 of actual CASH you dont get! Lets say the Dad takes a big risk and starts his own business, his salary is now $200k per year. He works nights, weekends - he sacrifices for his family because he wants a better life for them. His wife still needs to work since sending 3 kids to college will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. His wife makes 60k per year. CHA CHING - well guess what? That now means they make 260K per year. Hey! THEY ARE RICH!!! It doesnt matter that they pay daycare for the 3 kids, doesnt matter that the have to fund their childrens education. Now, they will pay more taxes! And not just a higher rate. Their itemized deductions will be reduced, thus raising their taxable income ! Bottom line - by trying to fund their own life, they get screwed.
So -you ask how then do we fund government initiatives? How about helping this family? How about more money (ie; their OWN money) in their pockets so they can take their kids to Disney (helps the economy) take the kids to Chuckie Cheese (helps the economy) open a 529 to save for college (helps the economy) enroll the kids in gymnastics (helps the economy) , buy a new volvo (helps the economy) take the kids to a science museum (helps the economy)
See what Im saying. This is no politcal rhetoric, no Limbaugh replublican crap. Its the opinion of someone who works with people like this and who see these situations all the time.

Jimmy, I agree with most of this but you're off base on one point.

Anyone with children should not buy a Volvo. There just isn't enough room for children over the age of 5 to fit in the back seat of an S60 or even an S80 behind a normal or bigger size adult. Never mind trying to fit 4 grown men (and a cooler in the back seat because the trunk is too small) for a ride down to the Cape.

you need the X90, whihc is more expensive, thus you pay more property tax AND sales tax!
everyone wins!

you need the X90, whihc is more expensive, thus you pay more property tax AND sales tax!
everyone wins!

I'd take the SUV in a heartbeat, but I have a feeling my boss doesn't think I need something so expensive.

Don't worry about the taxes, though. I'm sure Deval will find a way to come up with even more obscure and ridiculous taxes for all of us.

I also don't know but have heard that the wealthiest 2% or 4% or some small number currently pay 40% of the fed income taxes.

Nonetheless, the rich are doing just fine and have been for the better part of the last 3 decades.... thank you very much.

I'd like to know the size of the slice of the aggregate income pie the the wealthiest 2% or 4% have made their own. And more importantly, how that slice has grown over the last dozen or so years.

I think Johnny summed it up well, you can't get water from stone.

Nonetheless, the rich are doing just fine and have been for the better part of the last 3 decades.... thank you very much.

I'd like to know the size of the slice of the aggregate income pie the the wealthiest 2% or 4% have made their own. And more importantly, how that slice has grown over the last dozen or so years.

I think Johnny summed it up well, you can't get water from stone.

Damn them rich bastards. I hate them all.

I would like to know the slice of the tax burden these bastards are paying. And more importantly, how that slice has grown over the last dozen or so years.

What you guys are talking about is that phrase that Spence hates: "redistribution of wealth". I'm not wealthy, but I don't believe that wealthy people should be taxed more just because they have more. They already pay the most, why should they have pay more.

Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.

Keep in mind that many of the high wage earners are business owners who employ and provide benefits to others. If they have no incentive to grow their businesses, the can't create more jobs. This is just a way to discourage people from trying to grow businesses and by extension, the economy.

And many of the "rich" aren't doing just fine. Ask a guy who has a lot of his assets in investments if he's doing "fine" right now. You might just get a tall chock in the gulliver.

A quick google to the IRS web site and here it is:

This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

Ya, Bush did them huge favors.

What you guys are talking about is that phrase that Spence hates: "redistribution of wealth". I'm not wealthy, but I don't believe that wealthy people should be taxed more just because they have more. They already pay the most, why should they have pay more.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but were talking an increase of 3% for take home pay and a change from 15% to roughly 36% on capital gains taxes - ballpark. I would hardly call that a disincentive but than again I dont buy into many of the assumptions of classical economics and human behavior.

I think before Reagan, the government took 80 cents of every $1.00 earned above the $3,000,000 income threshold - now that, one could argue, is a bit much. But then again, thats still 250,000 dollars, not exactly chump change.

Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.

Agreed

And many of the "rich" aren't doing just fine. Ask a guy who has a lot of his assets in investments if he's doing "fine" right now. You might just get a tall chock in the gulliver.

Humans can get used to just about anything....why are the rich any different?

250,000 dollars a month*

*type error from previous thread

ES44, I think my post clearly articilates the issue. If rich is over 250K
How can you justify a family with 2-3-4-5 kids having to fund their entire education themselves, daycare, etc and PAYING MORE TAXES????
THEY GET NO ADDITIONAL DEDUCUCTIONS! THEY WILL GET NO BENEFITS. There will be NO FINANCIAL AID for college!
your missing the picture by thinking its just tax.
I dont make 250K a year, but I have a hard time saying thats "rich".
In order to support their families, the "rich" will cut back more on spending, which will hurt the economy more that tax revenue will help

Humans can get used to just about anything....why are the rich any different?

Yes they can, but they shouldn't be forced by the government to.

Why don't we just take your theory on economics and apply it to other areas of life.

In high schools, lets take all of the students who get A's and knock them down to B's. We can then give all the C students B's. That way, they can get into the same colleges as the hard working, more intelligent A students. Hey, the A students can still get into college so what's the harm?

In the Olympics, lets take away some Gold Medals from the US team because they won too many. Give a few to Lithuania and Bolivia because they don't have any. It's ok though because even though the US athletes worked hard and trained for years for their medals, the team still has the most.

I know these examples are far fetched, but hopefully you can see where your logic is flawed.

People who work hard should not be forced to give up what they earned when they are already giving a lot more than their fair share.

Johnny - you're misinformed. This higher tax is NOT to get us out of the current economic situation, it is to FUND healthcare and other programs Obama is targeting. Its part of the budget, not the bailout. There is a general misunderstanding on how money works that the Dems capitalize on. Put your politics a side and hear me out.
Since you dont have kids, you dont see it, here is a brief overview. For hard working people that want a better life for their kids, In order to pay for college for their kids most people need two incomes in a family, thus they need some form of daycare to take care of the kids before and after work - cha-ching! Tens of thousands each year - AND THAT HELPS THE ECONOMY BY PAYING DAYCARE SALARIES, whihc means more tax for the governement!. A good thing.
Because the have two jobs, they make more money and thus pay more taxes, fair enough. But since they make more money, they get no benefits. If they make over 150K per couple (taxable income) they dont get to take the $1000 tax credit (and this is under Bush, not Obamas fault) . If you have 3 kids, thats 3000 of actual CASH you dont get! Lets say the Dad takes a big risk and starts his own business, his salary is now $200k per year. He works nights, weekends - he sacrifices for his family because he wants a better life for them. His wife still needs to work since sending 3 kids to college will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. His wife makes 60k per year. CHA CHING - well guess what? That now means they make 260K per year. Hey! THEY ARE RICH!!! It doesnt matter that they pay daycare for the 3 kids, doesnt matter that the have to fund their childrens education. Now, they will pay more taxes! And not just a higher rate. Their itemized deductions will be reduced, thus raising their taxable income ! Bottom line - by trying to fund their own life, they get screwed.
So -you ask how then do we fund government initiatives? How about helping this family? How about more money (ie; their OWN money) in their pockets so they can take their kids to Disney (helps the economy) take the kids to Chuckie Cheese (helps the economy) open a 529 to save for college (helps the economy) enroll the kids in gymnastics (helps the economy) , buy a new volvo (helps the economy) take the kids to a science museum (helps the economy)
See what Im saying. This is no politcal rhetoric, no Limbaugh replublican crap. Its the opinion of someone who works with people like this and who see these situations all the time.

RIJimmy, none of this is new information to me. I know how child tax credits work and understand the costs involved with raising a child to 18y/o ($170,460 including child care) and sending one to college.

However, I refuse to accept that the average family with 3 kids and over $250k total income is struggling to raise their kids, put food on the table and send their kids to college. I refuse to accept it because my single mother, who doesn't even have a High School degree nor has ever had anything handed to her always put food on the table and sent me to college. I also know of 2 different families (one with 3 kids and one with 4) that has a combined income over $200k and both families have sent all their kids to college.

As I have said in many other posts, people making that kind of money who have been *responsible* with that money should not be struggling. That means not buying the biggest house they can buy, the wife not going for facials or pedicures every month and the husband not owning the biggest boat fully outfitted that he can buy.

I have met quite a few people who at first look you would expect are extremely wealthy. But in actuality even though the husband makes $200k/year, they live paycheck to paycheck. I also know people in this category that are going to lose their house. They bought the absolute biggest house they could afford on an ARM and then eventually couldn't afford the payments - missed payments on the car, truck and house and are now in foreclosure. I don't feel bad for these people - they have completely over extended themselves without any safety net by living above their means.

I'm also an opponent of people being rewarded for having children. Now, I know that is easy for me to say right now not having any, but I think it is completely irresponsible for anyone to not take steps to avoid pregnancy unless they can afford a (or an additional) child.

Now, I don't think higher earners should be paying taxes out the a*s forever, but I do think the money has to come from somewhere. I was never a fan of Bush's tax cuts and I have always been a proponent of rolling them back. My opinion for the last two years has been that those tax cuts will be seen as the starting point for the current state of the economy.

Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.
I agree completely. Some people aren't aware that Congress gets an automatic $4,700 pay increase yearly unless they vote not to. How many people here would vote *against* them getting more money? Ron Paul is one of the very few people that has been for preventing the pay increase, he has also been for reducing the amount of paid expenses that should be covered. Realistically though, the problem with the system is that the people who vote on Congressional salaries and budgets are the people who benefit from them.

Johnny, couldnt disagree more, but appreciate you thinking of it. I can never believe that the $30 tip a waiter gets from a "rich" person having a $150 dinner would be better spent giving the $30 to the government to dole out as they see fit.

Rich people spend more money, more money in the pockets of people who work.

Johnny, couldnt disagree more, but appreciate you thinking of it. I can never believe that the $30 tip a waiter gets from a "rich" person having a $150 dinner would be better spent giving the $30 to the government to dole out as they see fit.

I can completely respect that. Just a difference in opinion.

In a somewhat related note, I think reform needs to happen with regards to the way Capital Gains Tax is handled. One rate, across the board. Assuming the market will eventually come back and return to it's average of 7-11% return/year, there shouldn't be a need to "provide an incentive" for people to invest in the capital market.

I have met quite a few people who at first look you would expect are extremely wealthy. But in actuality even though the husband makes $200k/year, they live paycheck to paycheck. I also know people in this category that are going to lose their house. They bought the absolute biggest house they could afford on an ARM and then eventually couldn't afford the payments - missed payments on the car, truck and house and are now in foreclosure. I don't feel bad for these people - they have completely over extended themselves without any safety net by living above their means.


Bingo,very big part of the current crisis.

Next debacle will be the defaults on credit cards.

Ihmo, if Greenspan had acted slower on reducing interest rates, the bubble could have been deflated a lot slower stabilizing things over a long period of time.

But ya know we were/are a country of, "i want it and i want it now."

But ya know we were/are a country of, "i want it and i want it now."

And, sadly "I want yours, too."

I don't mean to hijack my thread back to carbon credits, but....

How long before we have to buy carbon credits from the government for our big houses, boats and SUVs.?

I will say within a year.........

Look at it as another way of sticking it to the rich. You know the guys with boats.

I don't mean to hijack my thread back to carbon credits, but....

How long before we have to buy carbon credits from the government for our big houses, boats and SUVs.?
Sounds like a great idea :humpty:

Who here thinks they have a Right to pollute?

-spence

Sounds like a great idea :humpty:

Who here thinks they have a Right to pollute?

-spence

And I thought I was the trouble maker:rotf3:

You calling us boat owners out , Spence?

I don't mean to hijack my thread back to carbon credits, but....

How long before we have to buy carbon credits from the government for our big houses, boats and SUVs.?

I will say within a year.........

Look at it as another way of sticking it to the rich. You know the guys with boats.

Now I think you're just being ridiculous.:p

I find it a bit hypocritical that you're gathering the troops and trying to get as many people as possible involved in going to tuna hearings. Then, come in here and try to say that the amount of pollutants that companies put into the air shouldn't be regulated.

Based on your own arguments, we don't need the Feds limiting our catch on Striped Bass and tuna. Commercial guys should be able to go out, gaff every fish they catch and bring them all to market - be it 20 Stripers or 8 80lb tuna. Or is it because the word tax is used in one situation and "limit" is used in the other? Either way, isn't it the crazy liberal government trying to keep money out of the hands of the working man? Be conservative if it relates to our hobbies, but waste at will when it concerns our wallets? My hobby is someone else's paycheck.

So which is it? When are you ok with the government getting involved?

Let me guess, the fish management is to prevent the species from going extinct - so that makes it acceptable. Well maybe the recently low YOY numbers are due to a natural cycle in the size of the bass population. Maybe the recent absence of forage is due to a natural cycle of where the forage migrates. (Sounds awfully similar to opponent's views on global warming.)

So where's the line?

Your way off base Johnny. Who said they shouldn't be limited? They are limited.

A tax and a limit are not even close to the same thing. How about they randomly pick a size fish and then tax you for anything over that limit?

Carbon credits are a scam. The same amount of pollution is going in the air , they are just stealing $$ and coming up with a new form af taxation.

We already have the EPA among others to regulate pollution. If you want to use strong scientific data to further tighten restrictions then have at it. Don't go about it in a BS way like the "carbon credit" scam.
Don't bitch about jobs going over seas and blame the economy on Bush when this is the sort thing that you defend. TIMING IS EVERYTHING

Your way off base Johnny. Who said they shouldn't be limited? They are limited.

A tax and a limit are not even close to the same thing. How about they randomly pick a size fish and then tax you for anything over that limit?

Carbon credits are a scam. The same amount of pollution is going in the air , they are just stealing $$ and coming up with a new form af taxation.

We already have the EPA among others to regulate pollution. If you want to use strong scientific data to further tighten restrictions then have at it. Don't go about it in a BS way like the "carbon credit" scam.
Don't bitch about jobs going over seas and blame the economy on Bush when this is the sort thing that you defend. TIMING IS EVERYTHING

So it is because one regulation uses the word limit and the other uses the word tax then?

Taxes put on high-carbon output companies in Europe have shown that companies adjust business practices to lower their emissions. On the other hand, Cap-and-Trade programs are a huge scam. They are too complex and often can be easily exploited.

Not only are these companies contributing to emissions, they also contribute to our dependence on foreign oil. Corporations do not change their ways unless there is some incentive to do so (lowering their tax liability).

I agree "Timing is Everything." And it's about time this country actually takes steps to lower it's oil dependence. You're one who continually states that we're screwing over our children with the policies of today. Fuels consist of almost 1/4th of all US imports. The price of oil has a direct effect on just about every consumer good in this country, not to mention how much people drive, the vacations they go on, etc. If our dependence on oil isn't reduced, then it's our children that are going to be screwed by it. We already got a preview last year as to what can happen - people not being about to by oil to heat their homes, airfare going through the roof, the grocery bill going up 10-20%.

Even though I'm a proponent of drilling in Alaska, it won't solve the long term problem. It's also not financially viable unless oil is above $50/barrel, the price/barrel has to be even higher to warrant offshore drilling.

The point: our dependence on oil needs to be reduced. Also, the emissions put out by this countries biggest polluters needs to be reduced. Those two things combined will have lasting beneficial effects on this country - financially and economically. If taxing heavy polluters is the only way to create an incentive for them to change their ways, so be it.

It's a scam John.
Your buying into it. Regulate it the way they have been regulating it. Give companies an incentive to reduce pollution. Here's an idea, A TAX BREAK . Why is it your all for giving more to the government?
.

It's a scam John.
Your buying into it. Regulate it the way they have been regulating it. Give companies an incentive to reduce pollution. Here's an idea, A TAX BREAK . Why is it your all for giving more to the government?
.

They've already been offered tax breaks for performing R&D on renewable and clean energy. Most states offer quite generous incentives for corporations to invest in solar and wind generation, with little effect.

You show me empirical evidence other than a gut opinion as to why a Carbon Tax is a scam and how even with reports of it being successful in Europe, it will have no effect here.... then I'll believe you.

They've already been offered tax breaks for performing R&D on renewable and clean energy. Most states offer quite generous incentives for corporations to invest in solar and wind generation, with little effect.

You show me empirical evidence other than a gut opinion as to why a Carbon Tax is a scam and how even with reports of it being successful in Europe, it will have no effect here.... then I'll believe you.

You say that tax incentives have had little effect. There is plenty of empirical evidence to proof that wrong.

This is what will happen. I pollute X amount and the government charges me X amount.I could spend the money and fix it but since they are hell bent on alternate energy sources and running my coal fired plant out of town, I figure I'll just pass that amount on to Johnny's electric bill. Obama get's his and Johnny gets screwed again.
So.......When does Johnny figure out it's a scam?

You say that tax incentives have had little effect. There is plenty of empirical evidence to proof that wrong.

This is what will happen. I pollute X amount and the government charges me X amount.I could spend the money and fix it but since they are hell bent on alternate energy sources and running my coal fired plant out of town, I figure I'll just pass that amount on to Johnny's electric bill. Obama get's his and Johnny gets screwed again.
So.......When does Johnny figure out it's a scam?

That's perfectly fine by me. The more those dirty, polluting coal plants decide to forward the prices onto me, the more motivated I am going to be to put solar panels on my house. I have already told my girlfriend, that when we finally buy a house, it has to be cheap enough for us to afford the added additional costs of putting solar panels and solar water heating into place. At current energy prices and current solar technology, I will more than likely be looking at a 4-6 year break-even point. Then I start saving significant amounts of money - and that's not considering advances in technology (and the definite increase in energy prices) between now and then.

Companies that choose to continue on with how they have always done things will fail - automotive companies come time mind. It is only a matter of time before more stringent pollution limits are put onto companies like coal plants. Just like everything else in the world, the way we use energy is evolving past what was put in place during the Industrial Revolution. Coal is cheap now, but eventually if those companies don't learn from the automotive industry, they will see the same fate.

And I say "Let Them Fail."

But what about the poor shmuck that can't afford to switch over to solar. A little advise,don't buy too small a house. With todays technology your going to need one big ass roof.

You say that tax incentives have had little effect. There is plenty of empirical evidence to proof that wrong.

This is what will happen. I pollute X amount and the government charges me X amount.I could spend the money and fix it but since they are hell bent on alternate energy sources and running my coal fired plant out of town, I figure I'll just pass that amount on to Johnny's electric bill. Obama get's his and Johnny gets screwed again.
So.......When does Johnny figure out it's a scam?

Let's take the Brayton Point power plant as an example. The Government passes tighter environmental regulations, and instead of upgrading the plant to emit less methyl mercury, they just keep the plant going "as-is" and pay the fines which are next to nothing.

The costs are then never really passed on to the consumer in the form of higher energy prices.

It is passed onto my son via the quality of air he breathes and in the fish he eats.

Scam my ass, open your mind.

-spence

Let's take the Brayton Point power plant as an example. The Government passes tighter environmental regulations, and instead of upgrading the plant to emit less methyl mercury, they just keep the plant going "as-is" and pay the fines which are next to nothing.

The costs are then never really passed on to the consumer in the form of higher energy prices.

It is passed onto my son via the quality of air he breathes and in the fish he eats.

Scam my ass, open your mind.-spence


Then raise the fines and give them an grace period where they can reuse the fine $$ to improve the plant.

Actually the fines are paid by the consumer also.

I'm open to anything that works.
In the budget he is charging carbon credits which will raise the rates and then giving a large portion of that money to people that can't afford the higher cost. How's that going to help your son breath better?
Incentives work. I see it every day and I would be willing to bet you and everyone on here has mailed in a rebate on an Energy Star product or used the tax rebate to get a new, more efficient furnace for there home. See, it's working already.

Then raise the fines and give them an grace period where they can reuse the fine $$ to improve the plant.
Problem is the energy lobby and their "regulation is evil" proponents in the GOP do everything to keep penalties low.

There are no solutions I'm aware of that won't ultimately pass increased energy costs to the consumer, that much is simple. They key is that we're already paying the higher costs in terms of health and environmental impact.

What I like about the Carbon Credit idea is that it's tied to behavior. Yes, it's not perfect but neither is what we have now. Making my energy more expensive with the benefit of a cleaner environment might just be a net zero situation that's more sustainable.

-spence

What I like about the Carbon Credit idea is that it's tied to behavior. Yes, it's not perfect but neither is what we have now. Making my energy more expensive with the benefit of a cleaner environment might just be a net zero situation that's more sustainable.

That's my opinion on it as well. But, behavior will change either on the energy producer end or the user end. If because of the Carbon Credit a company decides it isn't going to change it's behavior and is going to forward the cost to the consumer, eventually the consumer will change their behavior and switch to renewable energy sources.

I refuse to accept the "Let's not do anything at all and *blank* (insert: corporations, the economy, consumers, lending companies, government) will fix itself" attitude that some people here feel will resolve all our problems.

This society has *reaction* as opposed to action attitude. What I mean is there is no foresight in this country. No one tries to avoid issues before they happen. People wait until the absolute worst case occurs and then want the government to respond and fix it right away. People only think about now and never about tomorrow.

Johnny, Who said don't do anything at all?

"Then raise the fines and give them an grace period where they can reuse the fine $$ to improve the plant. " this is what I said.

Using Carbon Credits as a form of taxation is a scam. That's what Obama's plan is. I think it's insane and will further hurt any chance at an economic recovery.

That's my opinion on it as well. But, behavior will change either on the energy producer end or the user end. If because of the Carbon Credit a company decides it isn't going to change it's behavior and is going to forward the cost to the consumer, eventually the consumer will change their behavior and switch to renewable energy sources.

I refuse to accept the "Let's not do anything at all and *blank* (insert: corporations, the economy, consumers, lending companies, government) will fix itself" attitude that some people here feel will resolve all our problems.

This society has *reaction* as opposed to action attitude. What I mean is there is no foresight in this country. No one tries to avoid issues before they happen. People wait until the absolute worst case occurs and then want the government to respond and fix it right away. People only think about now and never about tomorrow.

Unfortunately, issues don't exist until they happen. We are constantly warned about consequences due to new behaviour, and there is usually disagreement about what will happen. Hasty action usually leads to worse problems than predicted consequences. No one knows and only the most prescient can predict how things will actually shake out. It would, seemingly, be wonderful if we could invent a prediction machine that produced a 90% or better success rate. Meanwhile, passionate arguments by those certain of their knowledge abound. Hasty "action" is, at best, hit and miss, but it is usually more destructive than helpful. Against all intuition, the most efficient response to new behavior is to let the competing elements work through the arising problems. It's slower than doing something right away, but more correct in its outcome and will come to the best solution more quickly as it will avoid false solutions that slow the process down.

Unfortunately, issues don't exist until they happen. We are constantly warned about consequences due to new behaviour, and there is usually disagreement about what will happen. Hasty action usually leads to worse problems than predicted consequences. No one knows and only the most prescient can predict how things will actually shake out. It would, seemingly, be wonderful if we could invent a prediction machine that produced a 90% or better success rate. Meanwhile, passionate arguments by those certain of their knowledge abound. Hasty "action" is, at best, hit and miss, but it is usually more destructive than helpful. Against all intuition, the most efficient response to new behavior is to let the competing elements work through the arising problems. It's slower than doing something right away, but more correct in its outcome and will come to the best solution more quickly as it will avoid false solutions that slow the process down.


I agree with this in it's entirety. However, I think that most of what the Dems. are doing is not kneejerk, but a concerted effort to enlarge the government, redistribute money and move towards a America "they" feel is better for us.

This should help out the economy!

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Obama+shifts+budget+focus/1331436/story.html

But he's only been in office a few months, give the man a chance.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said the 104-page budget outline as was "at long last . . . a statement of our national values."


Who's values? The social state of CA?

The social state of CA?

Ya. How's that working out for them on the left coast?

I agree with this in it's entirety. However, I think that most of what the Dems. are doing is not kneejerk, but a concerted effort to enlarge the government, redistribute money and move towards a America "they" feel is better for us.

Yes, because only when we have a Marxist economy will the worker really be empowered!

You know, when you get below the rhetoric there's really very little difference between how the Republicans and Democrats run the country when applied to the global spectrum. While I think Ralph Nader is a bit of a super-cook, on this point I do agree.

-spence

Ya. How's that working out for them on the left coast?

where's the earthquake when you need one.