Get Ready for the Largest Tax Increas in History

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

My point is/was that with the Cap and Trade issue and private polluting industry buying credits, major companies like BP, NIPSCo, and other major polluters buying credits, will naturally kick up our (the consumer) energy bills, which will also be taxed to the increased costs.

We've used the cap and trade system before, haven't we? Did such implementations translate to increased prices for consumers?

Cap and Trade was never used on this scale...and YOU know it.

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

You're not?
You sure had me fooled. I'm curious to hear which Democrats on a national or state level that you voted for.

Unlike your pathetic self, I don't just "pull one lever". I don't have to stick to a primary declaration...
(Civics 101)

No voter has ever been forced to stick to a party declaration in this country for more than one election. That choice of party only applies to that primary. Ever voter is free to vote for any candidate they want to in the general election.

sparks wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

You're not?
You sure had me fooled. I'm curious to hear which Democrats on a national or state level that you voted for.

Unlike your pathetic self, I don't just "pull one lever". I don't have to stick to a primary declaration...
(Civics 101)

No voter has ever been forced to stick to a party declaration in this country for more than one election. That choice of party only applies to that primary. Ever voter is free to vote for any candidate they want to in the general election.

Sparks. IF you'd just READ what I have highlighted in RED, I already stated exactly what you tried to point out...just butt out.

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

You're not?
You sure had me fooled. I'm curious to hear which Democrats on a national or state level that you voted for.

Unlike your pathetic self, I don't just "pull one lever". I don't have to stick to a primary declaration...
(Civics 101)

Once again.....Name a Democrat that you voted for on a National or State level.

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

You're not?
You sure had me fooled. I'm curious to hear which Democrats on a national or state level that you voted for.

Unlike your pathetic self, I don't just "pull one lever". I don't have to stick to a primary declaration...
(Civics 101)

Once again.....Name a Democrat that you voted for on a National or State level.

1. Why, what's the point?
2. How is it any of your business?

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

You're not?
You sure had me fooled. I'm curious to hear which Democrats on a national or state level that you voted for.

Unlike your pathetic self, I don't just "pull one lever". I don't have to stick to a primary declaration...
(Civics 101)

Once again.....Name a Democrat that you voted for on a National or State level.

1. Why, what's the point?
2. How is it any of your business?

You're the one who made the ridiculous claim,not me. I simply asked for some examples which naturally you couldn't provide. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that follows your postings that you're a right winger.

LoisLane wrote:

Cap and Trade was never used on this scale...and YOU know it.

No, I didn't, which is why I asked. But I'm guessing that's a "no" to my latter question. Regardless, this isn't a tax increase at all then. It's nothing but speculation that the energy companies will increase costs for consumers.

What's your alternative solution to cap and trade?

LoisLane wrote:

Admittedly, Bush was one of the worst presidents in history. No argument there. I didn't like MOST of his policies, but some were good. (Let's NOT go there) Keep in mind, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

Right.
That's why you voted for John McCain who wouild have continued the same failed, disastrous, catastrophic policies of George Bush.

That's what I am keeping in mind.

edge540 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Admittedly, Bush was one of the worst presidents in history. No argument there. I didn't like MOST of his policies, but some were good. (Let's NOT go there) Keep in mind, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

Right.
That's why you voted for John McCain who wouild have continued the same failed, disastrous, catastrophic policies of George Bush.

That's what I am keeping in mind.

And exactly HOW would YOU know for whom I voted? You don't know shit!

Now now, Lois, it doen't take a Phd to figure out who you voted for.
This post gives me a pretty good indication that you didn't vote for Barack Obama & that you voted for John McCain & Sarah Palin:

Quote :

I would have rather watched ANOTHER Cosby Show mini-marathon. What a joke. Preaching about helping out the poor, and this clown spends millions for a commercial, millions on the convention, and millions on the "party". Imagine how many computer labs the Messiah could have donated. And how many votes he could have gained with the media photo op's. This country is in the toilet, and Obama's hand is on the flushing handle.

edge540 wrote:

Now now, Lois, it doen't take a Phd to figure out who you voted for.
This post gives me a pretty good indication that you didn't vote for Barack Obama & that you voted for John McCain & Sarah Palin:

Quote :

I would have rather watched ANOTHER Cosby Show mini-marathon. What a joke. Preaching about helping out the poor, and this clown spends millions for a commercial, millions on the convention, and millions on the "party". Imagine how many computer labs the Messiah could have donated. And how many votes he could have gained with the media photo op's. This country is in the toilet, and Obama's hand is on the flushing handle.

McCain may have been too mainstream for her. I'm thinking maybe a nutty fringe candidate like Bob Barr.

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Now now, Lois, it doen't take a Phd to figure out who you voted for.
This post gives me a pretty good indication that you didn't vote for Barack Obama & that you voted for John McCain & Sarah Palin:

Quote :

I would have rather watched ANOTHER Cosby Show mini-marathon. What a joke. Preaching about helping out the poor, and this clown spends millions for a commercial, millions on the convention, and millions on the "party". Imagine how many computer labs the Messiah could have donated. And how many votes he could have gained with the media photo op's. This country is in the toilet, and Obama's hand is on the flushing handle.

McCain may have been too mainstream for her. I'm thinking maybe a nutty fringe candidate like Bob Barr.

What a joke. Neither you or Edge know for whom I voted, but you are both preoccupied with my answer. It would be amazing if you two could channel your efforts for a cause...perhaps employment?

[quote="LoisLane"]

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Now now, Lois, it doen't take a Phd to figure out who you voted for.
This post gives me a pretty good indication that you didn't vote for Barack Obama & that you voted for John McCain & Sarah Palin:

Quote :

I would have rather watched ANOTHER Cosby Show mini-marathon. What a joke. Preaching about helping out the poor, and this clown spends millions for a commercial, millions on the convention, and millions on the "party". Imagine how many computer labs the Messiah could have donated. And how many votes he could have gained with the media photo op's. This country is in the toilet, and Obama's hand is on the flushing handle.

McCain may have been too mainstream for her. I'm thinking maybe a nutty fringe candidate like Bob Barr.

Quote :

What a joke. Neither you or Edge know for whom I voted, but you are both preoccupied with my answer.

Well we know for sure it wasn't Obama.

Quote :

It would be amazing if you two could channel your efforts for a cause...perhaps employment?

Thanks for the usual gratuitous insult. Perhaps you can work on channeling your emotions in a way that doesn't require you to insult people after you paint yourself into a corner.

Artie60438 wrote:

Thanks for the usual gratuitous insult. Perhaps you can work on channeling your emotions in a way that doesn't require you to insult people after you paint yourself into a corner.

You are very perceptive. I didn't vote for Obama. Why? He was my senator (D-IL) and looking at his record I noticed all of the legislation he refused to vote on. His tenure in the senate (like Burris') was a total waste of a vote. So, why would I support him as president? I didn't!

As for the gratuitous insult: It is my pleasure. Insulting people is one of my best things. And in the case of some posters on this board, it comes way too easy.

Don't thank me, just remember me at Christmas...

LoisLane wrote:

As for the gratuitous insult: It is my pleasure. Insulting people is one of my best things. And in the case of some posters on this board, it comes way too easy.

Especially when your lame talking points go :dyno:

Lois Lane wrote:

Quote :

You are very perceptive. I didn't vote for Obama...

Ah, so you actually DID vote for 'Straight Talk John McCain' who was going to to CONTINUE the failed policies of George Bush...thank you for admitting that.

An excellent insight into the mind of a conservtive.

edge540 wrote:

Lois Lane wrote:

Quote :

You are very perceptive. I didn't vote for Obama...

Ah, so you actually DID vote for 'Straight Talk John McCain' who was going to to CONTINUE the failed policies of George Bush...thank you for admitting that.

An excellent insight into the mind of a conservtive.

OK Einstein...I didn't vote for Grandpa McCain either.
Are you going to keep on guessing? Why do you care? I don't care about whom you voted for.
But I do know why...

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Well Heretic/Scorpion, when Nobama and the Nasty Pelosi gang runs over the cliff, will you still follow?

Yeah, well personally, I follow no man (or woman). I base my opinions on the facts, not partisanship.

Judging from the tenor of your posts, you seem totally consumed by your hatred of the President and the Democratic party. IMHO, that hatred makes it virtually impossible for you to analyze policies rationally.

You have my pity.

I seem to remember your (Heritic/Scorpion) extreme hatred you expressed about George W. Bush and the Republican Party.

Then either your memory is seriously flawed. or you are confusing me with somebody else. I didn't hate President Bush, and I stated that repeatedly. I simply disagreed with his policies. I don't hate the Republican Party, either. I just think that the policies advocated by the majority of the party are and were unenlightened and misguided.

You're the one putting up post after post using terms like the "Messiah." It's obvious to everyone that you absolutely detest the President. Personally, I think it's unhealthy to indulge in hatred.

Scorpion wrote:

You're the one putting up post after post using terms like the "Messiah." It's obvious to everyone that you absolutely detest the President. Personally, I think it's unhealthy to indulge in hatred.

I am an American, and one of my rights is the public expression of my opinion.
And personally, I don't care what you think.

Scorpion wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Well Heretic/Scorpion, when Nobama and the Nasty Pelosi gang runs over the cliff, will you still follow?

Yeah, well personally, I follow no man (or woman). I base my opinions on the facts, not partisanship.

Judging from the tenor of your posts, you seem totally consumed by your hatred of the President and the Democratic party. IMHO, that hatred makes it virtually impossible for you to analyze policies rationally.

You have my pity.

I seem to remember your (Heritic/Scorpion) extreme hatred you expressed about George W. Bush and the Republican Party.

Then either your memory is seriously flawed. or you are confusing me with somebody else. I didn't hate President Bush, and I stated that repeatedly. I simply disagreed with his policies. I don't hate the Republican Party, either. I just think that the policies advocated by the majority of the party are and were unenlightened and misguided.

You're the one putting up post after post using terms like the "Messiah." It's obvious to everyone that you absolutely detest the President. Personally, I think it's unhealthy to indulge in hatred.

The current atmosphere of hate that has permeated a good portion of the conservative movement is the reason the right has lost so much support. I think many Americans question the motivations of many of the "Obama bashers" who want our President to fail. If Obama is unable to move ahead with solutions to problems such as global warming, the excessive cost of healthcare and the conflict in the Middle East, the entire country loses. If you don't agree with the Democrat's solutions, how about advancing a few of your own?

Obama can't solve the issue of global warming- especially when countries like India or China refuse to do their share. Expecting Americans to further shoulder the financial burden in times like this is bs.

As far as the excessive cost of healthcare, we've gotten this way because the government stepped in in the first place to start this. It was a good idea in the beginning, but as always when the gov't gets too involved in something well, we end up with the cluster-f##k we have now. Hell, even HMO's and Medicare can't even run correctly and whose got it's little hands all over it? The gov't. Gov't has no business getting larger and larger and involving itself in private businesses.

As far as expecting a fellow poster to advance their own ideas- that is what we have elected officials for. If they did the job they were elected to do instead of all the power struggles and partisan fighting- things might actually get done. IMHO.

Ohhmama wrote:

Obama can't solve the issue of global warming- especially when countries like India or China refuse to do their share. Expecting Americans to further shoulder the financial burden in times like this is bs.

So we should just do nothing?

Quote :

As far as the excessive cost of healthcare, we've gotten this way because the government stepped in in the first place to start this. It was a good idea in the beginning, but as always when the gov't gets too involved in something well, we end up with the cluster-f##k we have now. Hell, even HMO's and Medicare can't even run correctly and whose got it's little hands all over it? The gov't. Gov't has no business getting larger and larger and involving itself in private businesses.

We spend more on health care then any other country,our outcomes are worse,and we have 47 million uninsured.. It's time for change.

Ohhmama wrote:

Obama can't solve the issue of global warming- especially when countries like India or China refuse to do their share.

That's almost as stupid as saying, "I'm going to die one day, so going to the doctor ever is completely useless." This isn't all-or-nothing scenario. I posted this on the old forum when happy used the similar argument:

Quote :

Hmmm... Well, there are several things wrong with your assessment. First, no one is advocating doing nothing to prevent Butfukhistan from increasing emissions endlessly. The latitude to grant to developing nations hasn't been hammered out yet, but in a growth based economy, they are going to have to grow. I don't think we can morally relegate a country to third world status forever, can we? Regardless, this just goes to reiterate my point that growth is generally bad for us. Secondly, reducing emissions while others grow means we'd have less to deal with than had we both continued increasing emissions unabated (the situation we're laughably in now). That's simple math; yes, even you're capable. Buying time, however little, is hardly an "empty and symbolic gesture". Saying we'll be the world leaders in combating climate change while increasing emissions to record levels is a far better example, IMHO. Third, I don't think it has to be done at the expense of the livelihood of U.S. Industry (let's leave the useless alarmism to Ted Turner, shall we?), and have provided numerous reports to that effect. Here's what I said the last time this bullshit argument was offered:

I wrote:

We can at least agree that curbing emissions would buy us some time, right? At no time have I ever referred to Kyoto as our salvation. It is what it is. Merely a first step; an attempt to establish a way to fight global warming. The second phase hasn't even been negotiated yet.

Since then, NewScientist answered exactly this question in a recent article:

Quote :

[G]iven the scale of the increases in China, India and South America, is all this effort really worth it? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Emissions reductions are a bit like taxes: you may not like them, and your individual contribution may seem too measly to matter, but multiply that by several million and you can start to move mountains.

Scaled up to global level, these cuts become highly significant. If 100 million people in richer nations cut their CO2 emissions by 10 tonnes per year, on average, that would save a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, or around 5 per cent of the current global total. That won't solve the problem on its own, but it would create space for China and India to grow their economies and their carbon emissions for another year. Then we would need to add another 100 million people for the next year. And so on and so on, until new low-carbon technologies become cheap enough for developing countries like China and India to adopt them without undermining their economic development.

The global community would prefer not to allow the developing world to continue increasing their emissions indefinitely. Next month, diplomats and politicians will gather in Bali, Indonesia, to discuss what to do when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. Many will demand limits on the growing emissions of developing countries, including China and Indonesia, which was recently revealed to have the world's third-highest emissions - when the carbon sinks it has lost to the logging of rainforests and the draining of tropical peat swamps is taken into account. (And of course, we made sure no limits were set. -H)

Negotiating limits for China will not be easy. It may be about even with the US as the top emitter of CO2, but divide its output by its total population and the figures look rather different. The typical Chinese citizen is responsible for less than one-quarter of the emissions of the typical American: 4.8 tonnes compared to 20 tonnes. Individual Indians and Africans have emissions averaging 1 tonne or less (see Diagram).

With this in mind, a growing number of politicians are suggesting a fairer approach to cutting carbon, based not on national emissions but on setting tradeable individual carbon quotas (see "What's your quota?").

Ultimately, we will need to bring global emissions down low enough to match nature's ability to absorb them, which may be as low as 10 to 20 per cent of today's global emissions. But if a significant number of people change their ways and demand greener products, that will send a big signal to the market, encouraging the supply of green energy, low-carbon products, organic food and so on.

It's still relevant.

Ohhmama wrote:

Expecting Americans to further shoulder the financial burden in times like this is bs.

But you're forgetting one thing: We will have to shoulder the financial burder either way. Mitigation just happens to be cheaper than delaying further or doing nothing at all.

Ohhmama wrote:

As far as the excessive cost of healthcare, we've gotten this way because the government stepped in in the first place to start this.

Not quite:

Quote :

[T]he major cost drivers in our system stem from inefficient use. Possibly the most expensive are same-day and outpatient use of services which may be a reflection of our absence of universal coverage and acute treatment of problems better served by cost-saving GPs. Pharmaceutical costs come next with US citizens paying twice as much for drugs as our counterparts in other countries, largely due to our use of more expensive pharmaceuticals and our inability to collectively bargain with pharmaceutical companies. Administrative costs are also expensive, and privatization has increased costs even in the historically-efficient medicare system, these services need to either be centralized or regulated to prevent excessive profit-taking, and inefficiency. Physician compensation is higher in our country than in others, and may benefit from victim compensation funds, increased use of cost-saving GPs rather than specialist care, government subsidy of medical education, and reductions in specialist salaries through more even payment structure for procedures compared to office visits. The unknowns of defensive medicine likely contribute to our overuse of testing and imaging services as we also pay more than other countries for diagnostics, and I suspect this is a large portion of the cause. Finally, we could stand to address systemic inefficiencies through better information technology and the EMR which would reduce inefficiencies and redundant care as well as reduce the expense of end-of-life care through better data collection and collection of final directives and living wills.

Heretic wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Expecting Americans to further shoulder the financial burden in times like this is bs.

But you're forgetting one thing: We will have to shoulder the financial burder either way. Mitigation just happens to be cheaper than delaying further or doing nothing at all.

The countries that do the best job of producing clean,renewable energy in the 21 st century will be the countries that prosper. Since there is only a finite amount of fossil fuel in the world and an ever increasing demand for the energy it produces, it's price will continue to rise. The denialists like OhhMama and Lois Lane conveniently ignore that detail when they make claims about huge tax increases or financial burdens. Unfortunately, we are falling behind in the developement and manufacture of solar,wind and battery technology and the jobs they create. I am hopeful that with the change of leadership in Washington, the US will start to close the gap between us and the Europeans.