The Democrats are now making arguments to raise taxes to "fight global warming"
These taxes include
50 cent gasoline tax
Carbon Tax
Removing intrest tax deductions for homeowners
This is Big Government at its worst. Now they want to tax the crap out of gas, impose a whole new tax, and tell homeowners what kind of homes they should own. What do they propose to do with this "necessary revenue" spend it. At least they could be honest they want to raise our taxes for the sake of raises taxes to spend more. That is what this is all about. The Democrats have never seen a tax they have disliked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602127_pf.html
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 34
Come on. You have a political arguement against taxes, and that's a legitimate political arguement. Don't compromise your credibility with indefensible statements about the scientific "uncertainty" about the climate issue.
Gore (and others) had proposed a tax shift - tax carbon instead of income. There are no tax increases in that plan. Why would you oppose it - if you would?
That's the illusion. Republicans have only deferred taxes. The Chinese and Arabs are cash intensive. That's why U.S. infrastructure (under Republicans) is up for sale. That's the Republican tax policy.
Carbon tax - somebody tell me how that would work.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21012480/site/newsweek/
No need for alarm. That one won't go anywhere. Good for discussion though. I think we should be willing to make some sacrifices but a gas tax would be too burdensome for low income families.
yes it is a tax, ooh, that four letter word. oh yeah, I guess it's actually 3 letters.
No, I reject the idea that the Dems are suggesting this simply in order to get their hands on your cash. It is what it is, a means to provide an incentive to use less gas. Europe is way ahead of us on this and as a consequence their economies are becoming more energy efficient.
As for global warming, it also is what it is. If you are arguing that it is imaginary, feel free but science is not on your side. Or if you have a plan to address it that will not cost a dime, I am all ears. If you are not interested in either of those, I do not see your point.
I will note that this is somewhat politically brave by Dingell, who does not stand to gain anything politically from this.
http://bestoftoday.gather.com/
Taxes could be part of the strategy, if Dingell were actually serious about it. But it's really a half-hearted attempt to show his colleagues that a carbon tax won't float politically. Sam Carana favors a carbon tax, and I could support it. Lovins, on the other hand, sees it as unnecessary, since he has a strategy that has us off of oil between 2025 and 2050 - profitably, driven by business.
The problem is that the government collects taxes from me now to pay Exxon to find oil and the Pentagon to protect it. And to add insult to injury, the government gives businesses a tax write-off to buy Hummers that waste gas. I don't really like that freedom.
I think your unvoiced assumption is that we just need to come up with a plan, and our problem will instantly be solved. We will not have to spend a dime more on energy than we are currently spending. If that is your thought, sorry we do not live in that space time continuum. Whatever road we take to energy survival will have quite a few speedbumps, will make Exxon very unhappy, and will cost you and me both more money on energy than we are spending now. We can do it in a planned manner that will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, or we can wait for the petroleum bottlenecks and price jumps to arrive and kick us all in the ***. Pay now or pay double later.
MDP- yes the magical freedom of the marketplace. Not, the marketplace cannot do everything. And we do not exist to serve the marketplace, it is the other way around.
okay, we agree more than I thought we did! I tend to rant a bit when confronted with MDP's basic attitude that global warming is imaginary and the marketplace is there entirely to keep prices low.
No, the marketplace is there to help us survive. Low prices for oil in the long term are a barrier to that survival since global warming is real.
Amory Lovins @ the Rocky Mountain Institute says we can be off oil by the 2040s, led by business for profit. His strategy is comprehensive, and I enourage (no, urge) all interested in this issue to study his work.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T99-07_StrategyH2Trans.pdf
and
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Bush will be gone in a year and a half.
Rocky Mountain Institute just had its 25th year anniversary conference. In attendance was Bill Clinton. I think this may go a long way toward supporting her candidacy - and it shows just how influential RMI is becoming.
http://www.aspendailynews.com/archive_21085
No arguement here. But now he is wanting to build nuclear plants. Please let your elected representatives know that you do not want nuclear plants, and that you don't want to pay for the subsidies to keep them operating..
Kay: "We needed a firm policy from this president, but his pals in oil made that policy impossible--what a waste of time!"
Like I said, Bush will be gone in a year and a half. I agree he has wasted alot of time, but there's nothing we can do about that. We really had better communicate with congress, though, to stop him from doing even more damage (nuclear) - not to mention Iran.