By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - They myth that is man made global warming.

mrstickball on 28 June 2009
akuma587 said:
NJ5 said:
No matter whether man made global warming is true or not, the proposed solutions to deal with that problem are what we NEED to do for many other reasons... such as improving people's health, becoming less dependent on oil and coal...

Bottom line, let the scientists argue global warming, but decrease pollution and oil/coal use at the same time. It's the safest thing to do.

I really don't see how you can argue with this.  Are you guys really in support of all the money we funnel to Iran and other states that sponsor terrorism?  Are you guys really in favor of the dangerous cost of oil-cost of the dollar balance which could help cause the U.S. dollar to collapse?  Do you guys really think our current energy policy is sustainable, diplomatically, militarily, and economically?  Do you guys really think investing in new energy technologies, including nuclear energy, at an accelerated pace is a bad thing?

I don't understand how you guys can justify spending trillions and trillions of dollars on the military ($5 trillion since 2002) but balk at the idea of doing something that would weaken many of our enemies by taking money directly out of their hands simply because it will cost people $100 more a year.  How is that money not well spent?  Isn't that the role of the national government, to provide for the people's defenses in the most effective way possible?  This would be much more effective on states like Iran than typical economic sanctions as it would dry up their only source of revenue.

Given the fact that, AFAIK you support progressive taxation and socialism, I find it strange that you want to people that can't afford bills pay more due to government programs. 

I totally agree that funding more US-based energy solutions is the best way to stop terrorism and screwy regimes, since we get a lot of our oil from shady places (Russia, Venezuala, mid-east countries). However, I don't think the best way of doing it is to tax people for their own benefit 'Here, let me tax you so you can get something back....eventually'.

Balance the budget. Reduce spending on the military & social programs. Pay some of the debt off, THEN look at having government-backed solutions for energy. Otherwise, the funds earned from Cap & Trade will be wasted when the middle class and poor start claiming more exemptions due to energy expenses thanks to Cap & Trade.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Sardauk on 28 June 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

I don't understand how you guys can justify spending trillions and trillions of dollars on the military ($5 trillion since 2002) but balk at the idea of doing something that would weaken many of our enemies by taking money directly out of their hands simply because it will cost people $100 more a year.

The rich pay for the war. Energy, everyone pays for.

And I don't know who told you $100 a year, but they are full of shit.

The rich pay for the war ? Rich don't send kids to the army to pay college.

Everyone pay for energy because everyone are consuming it.

How much do you guys pay oil in US anyway ?



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

mrstickball on 28 June 2009

Sarduk -

The argument is that rich people pay for the war because they get taxed more, therefore a higher amount of money is sent for war efforts.

This is compared to energy expenses such as a heating bill, which every person pays. However, if you are poor/middle class, the increase in cost of energy is exponentially more costly. To a rich person, a $500/mo increase in heating costs is nothing, but a $300 increase to a person making $20-50k is a far bigger topic. Both consume similar amounts of energy to heat their home, but one person gets hurt far more. This would be the same as the government taxing fatty foods: poor and rich consume them both, but the increase in cost only affects one group.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

NJ5 on 28 June 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
No matter whether man made global warming is true or not, the proposed solutions to deal with that problem are what we NEED to do for many other reasons... such as improving people's health, becoming less dependent on oil and coal...

Bottom line, let the scientists argue global warming, but decrease pollution and oil/coal use at the same time. It's the safest thing to do.

it is if you're not poor.

The method they are going to use is to make cheep energy as expensive as green energy. If you live paycheck to paycheck, and you are told it's now going to cost $350 more to heat your house, I am not sure that's the "safest thing to do".

My personal views, is I don't mind paying $350 more to help find an alternative solution to energy. I however, don't need it to eat. Millions do.

If you're poor, ride the bus or the train (both of which use much less fuel per passenger). The West's (especially USA's) fascination with the automobile is a big part of the problem.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Sardauk on 28 June 2009
mrstickball said:
Sarduk -

The argument is that rich people pay for the war because they get taxed more, therefore a higher amount of money is sent for war efforts.

This is compared to energy expenses such as a heating bill, which every person pays. However, if you are poor/middle class, the increase in cost of energy is exponentially more costly. To a rich person, a $500/mo increase in heating costs is nothing, but a $300 increase to a person making $20-50k is a far bigger topic. Both consume similar amounts of energy to heat their home, but one person gets hurt far more. This would be the same as the government taxing fatty foods: poor and rich consume them both, but the increase in cost only affects one group.

500 per month increase is nothing ?



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

Around the Network
mrstickball on 28 June 2009

$500 to a person that makes ~$75,000+ a year is far less of a problem than $300-350 to a person that makes $20,000-$50,000. It's all about cost of living: If you make more, you have more disposable income. If your poor, you have far less. But this tax on energy will do far more to hurt the poor barely making ends meet than the rich, which consume more.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

NJ5 on 28 June 2009

Oh, also regarding heating costs... the way to decrease those is to add insulation (which can drastically reduce heating fuel usage and save money too), and move to smaller homes.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

akuma587 on 28 June 2009

Here are the actual cost estimates to dispel some of the misinformation:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Jun/26/house_narrowly_passes_major_energy_climate_bill.html

The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.

So, don't you guys agree that if you tax a behavior people are less likely to do it? I hear you guys say all the time that taxing rich people discourages investment. So wouldn't taxing the use of carbon based fuels significantly discourage people's use of those fuels?

And I don't see how you guys can argue that the government is not investing in alternative energy. The government is pouring TONS of movie into wind, solar, and also nuclear energy initiatives.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 28 June 2009
Sardauk said:

The rich pay for the war ? Rich don't send kids to the army to pay college.

No one sends anyone in the US to war. You have to volenteer for it first.



akuma587 on 28 June 2009
mrstickball said:
$500 to a person that makes ~$75,000+ a year is far less of a problem than $300-350 to a person that makes $20,000-$50,000. It's all about cost of living: If you make more, you have more disposable income. If your poor, you have far less. But this tax on energy will do far more to hurt the poor barely making ends meet than the rich, which consume more.

So...let me get this straight.

I have seen you a ton of times argue how more taxes on the rich are bad.

Now you are saying that more taxes on the poor are bad.

And this is really nothing but a consumption tax (the more energy you use the more you will have to pay), so I take it you are against consumption taxes too.

Is there any tax you do support?  Based on these arguments, you would also have to be against a fair tax as it would hurt poor people more. 

You know that a true fiscal conservative is willing to raise taxes to pay down the national debt right?  Even since the Bush Sr. years our debt has been too large to solve just by cuts in spending alone.  So I honestly don't consider you to be a fiscal conservative, and find it pretty disingenous that you try to pass yourself off as one.  I just consider you to be anti-tax.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson