The first of course, is anything that falls under the Patriot Act. The second dumbest thing I’ve ever heard is the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). To be the third dumbest thing that I’ve ever heard puts you in pretty august company. It’s right up there with stabbing yourself in the eye with an electric knife, drinking benzene, and immersing your private parts in sulfuric acid.
Michigan Democrat John Dingell wants to discuss the following points for reducing global warming:
- A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.
- A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.
- Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.
First of all, conceding that there is such a thing as anthropomorphic global warming (which can’t be conclusively demonstrated by scientists who aren’t suckling at the NSF teat or by those who don’t have a grudge against America), those three bullet points strike at the hearts of those who keep officials in this country elected. Gas prices are already outrageous thanks to price gouging from the likes of Exxon-Mobil and the towel-headed savages in the Middle East. Why in the world would I elect a congressman who wants me to pay another 50 cents per gallon on my 34 mile commute every morning? Screw that!
Why would I want producers in the energy grid for Texas, which runs independently of the national energy grid, and is kept running by coal, to have to pay more “red-tape” taxes? Those taxes will end up costing the energy providers nothing because they’re passed down to me, the end-user.
Lastly, my home is just over 2400 square feet. In the not-to-distant future, I will be using the equity and the increasing property values from my wise real-estate investment to trade upward to a larger home for a smaller house-payment. I don’t want to lose my tax deductions simply because I have the material resources to make myself and my family more comfortable. This just goes to show the classic difference between the two parties in our “glorious” political system. Republicans want to work for what they get; Democrats want to play Robin Hood with the stuff that others worked hard to accumulate for themselves and their families.
My hard-earned dollars belong in my bank account, not some community pool to fund those who think we’re poisoning the environment or to pay for those who are too lazy or too apathetic to educate themselves.
![Let’s Kill Hitler [HD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hESmStH-L._SL160_.jpg)
You remind me of the older people who refuse to raise their property taxes to fund education since they don’t have any children in school.. If you concede there is such a thing as anthropomorphic global warming, you might elect a congressman who wants you to pay another 50 cents per gallon on your 34 mile commute every morning because voting isn’t about serving yourself. It is about serving the nation (or to an extent, mankind). We have too much “pluribus”; not enough “unum”.
On a separate note: I don’t care a wit about global warming, but I heard an excellent plan for managing carbon emissions outside the private sector. Somehow it alloted businesses a number of “carbon credits”. The number of carbon credits wouldn’t increase, but they could be bought and sold between businesses. If a plant is unable to lower emissions, it would have to purchase credits from a company that was able. I’m not saying we need a CO2 plan and I am aware plats would move to less regulated countries, but I think this plan is well structured. It might be used to solve other problems. Fines and taxes are unfair ways to motivate people. It deters the poor but not the rich.
Hmm.. Do you think we could get some kind of Tasmpriest-enabled DKP system in place for Carbon emissions? I’m sure he’d be willing to run the infrastructure
You can’t even get me to agree that the government has a right to tax me differently from my fellow Americans, no matter what their financial background is. I find that to be economic discrimination! (Oooh…no one likes it when I use a valid argument involving discrimination!) Why should I, as a member of the upper middle class, bear one of the largest portions of our tax burden and yet be among the most productive? I should get what I pay for, no? In that case, I and others like me should have my own special lane on the freeway, since by percentage, I pay significantly more taxes than the super rich or the super poor.
The key problem is a fundamental disagreement over what people think the government should be allowed to do. Beyond the framework of the constitution (which I think may have even gone too far), I say that those powers not explicitly granted are disallowed. Unfortunately, precedent and people with good intentions (and those who are in bed with groups ranging from special interests to big business) have made this notion untenable. I now have to work within the framework (using the power of my franchise) to forge a structure that I can live with. And that’s what it comes down to, really. I use my votes to build a world that I can live comfortably in; I can color it in terms of altruism, justice, or fairness, but what it comes down to is that most people (including myself) vote in a way that provides the most advantage to themselves. It can be hoped that what provides an advantage to yourself also benefits your neighbor, but that isn’t always the case (ahem, Patriot Act and welfare).
Bottom line…the government should not be allowed the power to levy taxes based on junk science; some forms of taxation should be explicitly prohibited. This is notably anything that affects the infrastructure of your nation, which includes transportation, utilities, etc. While I may rail against OPEC (my towel-headed savages), they are using some of the tenets of a free-market economy against us. As Tasuja pointed out to me, there’s really not a whole lot I can say about that as long as I cling to Adam Smith.
In your post you set forth a hypothetical situation where you agreed the unchecked CO2 emissions would lead to global disaster. Just to be clear, we know you don’t buy into global warming. You then explained that given this hypothetical you could not imagine why you would want to pay 50 more cents per gallon just to, you know, save the planet. Either you have a poor imagination or you are one selfish bastard. The fact you claim you would let us all parish rather than raise your own taxes hurts your credibility. What more, I don’t believe you would sit idle while the earth burns. I think you are just too stubborn to agree with the opposition–even hypothetically. I’ve seen you call for people to throw their money and blood into defending our oil supply, which I hope you can agree is worth exponentially less than certain global disaster.
I could not disagree more in regards to voter responsibility. A ruler that only looks out for his owns interests rather than his subjects is piss poor. Rulers ought to serve their subjects–putting their own needs beneath the needs of the people. We are a democracy. We rule with our votes. When you step into the vote booth ask yourself what sort of ruler you wish to be. We trace our democratic heritage to Greece. When lecturing on the ideal government, Socrates claimed the majority of people are idiots. He then concluded that a democracy is to be ruled by idiots. We can hope for no better than we are.
I know little about government and economics, but hear me out regarding what I do know of taxes. I expect you to take from Target items that are valued near what you spent. This is not the case with taxes. Taxes are a means to redistribute wealth. The term implies some walk away with more than they put in and other walk away with less. The object of taxes is to fund projects that benefit many but are beyond the financial means of individuals. (I agree these projects also ought to be within the narrow scope of a small, Constitutional government.) This does not mean every project ought to benefit you, nor should you benefit in proportion to your taxes that were invested in a project. I think it is self evident the poor should not be taxed. Taxes should be the burden of the wealthy. (Editor’s note: Flat taxes, please.)
Your bottom line is loud and clear, but you should reconsider most statements that proceed it.
I might be slow, what is so bad about economic discrimination? Maybe I don’t know what it is. Should everyone be collecting welfare and food stamps? Is that economic discrimination?
*hands Pete a shovel* “Here, you might need this later.”
Chris, you’ve known Pete for how long and you’re just coming to the conclusion that he’s a selfish bastard? *rolls eyes* He is the spirit of contradiction and that’s what makes it so much fun to debate with him, when I’m not seriously ready to kill him for his one-sided views.
However, Pete. Throughout history, governments and societies have been ruled by what once was called your ‘junk science’. It was illegal to do autopsies on humans for a good period of time. I’m pretty sure we were universally self-centered and everything revolved around us at one point too. All science could be considered ‘junk science’ at one point. However, if Isabella didn’t give Columbus a ship based on the hunch that good ole mother terra wasn’t flat, we’d probably be still writing on maps ‘here be dragons’. While there were people who agreed with the theory that you wouldn’t fall off a cliff into an abyss should you sail the ocean blue, there were people who I’m sure thought Isabella crazy for taking a chance.
So yeah, your junk science may be hard to prove, as we’re still a pretty young species in terms of any evolutionary standards, but I’d rather pay the 50 cents a gallon (provided it goes to cleaner emissions and evidence is shown as such) to make sure that the human race isn’t wiped out by our own dirty footprints. I don’t want to be a blip on the universal scale of life. I want the human race to thrive and if it means cutting down less trees, paying a little more for gas while technology is bred that allows for cleaner burning fuels, so be it.
Oh and ‘wah’ on the house thing. I had a small 1200 sqft three bedroom house and lived in it just fine. That included three children (well four if you count my ex). If you can’t manage a space below the 4200 sqft structure that Dingell is suggesting, your wanton needs for self appreciation and public status will be your downfall.
Oooh. Shizzburn, bizzatch.
Yeah, and just imagine how much money we’ll have to fund Global Warming (er, Climate Change as it’s more frequently called now) Research when all the other countries that are contributing to the “problem” chip in their $ .50c per gallon tax revenues.
I’m totally trolling here, but I agree with Gary too. This shouldn’t be just an American “problem”. Yet, being the super power that we supposedly are, it would not hurt to lead the way.
Many of us use a biting sarcastic tone to drive our points home at this blog. I did not mean to imply Pete is a selfish bastard or an idiot. After re-reading my post I sent him an email affirming our man-love. I thought it best to affirm it with you all as well. Hell, lots of love to you too Kate. *kiss, kiss*
The treaty intended to curb our “climate in crisis” is The Kyoto Protocol. Many developed countries have signed the treaty. The US refuses. From what I gather the Bush administrations claims it doesn’t need a treaty to force the US to reduce emissions. Psha-right. A popular study shows the US is responsible for 20% of the world’s emissions. Assuming you buy into the climate problem, it seems odd to have all but the biggest offender commit to fixing the problem. Then again, I suspect the study that proclaimed us to emit 20% of the world’s CO2 was performed by the same people who did the studies that support “Climate Change”.
Btw.. Peter Watts couldn’t have come up with a better indirect response to this post.
You Won’t Get Elected If You Don’t Speak Klingon.
Umm…Junk science? I’m not talking about religion, mythology, or alchemy. I’m actually talking about a direct, intentional non-sequitir regarding both the analysis and collection of data by so-called scientists who depend on agencies with a political agenda to guarantee their future funding. That’s what global warming boils down to at this point. Funding agencies have policies levied against them by governments and special interest groups, which in turn get passed down to researchers. If you want money, if you want to publish papers that get you grants, then you need to make sure first that your science is politically expedient, and second, that you interpret your results in such a way that guarantees future funding. Trust me on this…my time as a grad student in Chemistry was NOT wasted.
Aside from stewardship issues, I don’t really see the need for any of the environmental paranoia that has gripped the developed nation of the world. Should we recycle? Yes. Should we develop alternative energy resources? Yes. Should we use engineering best practices to minimize pollution to the best achievable levels? Certainly. Should we practice wildlife conservation and responsible agriculture? Definitely. Should I have to pay .50 more per gallon of gas so a bunch of whiny Eurotrash can publish papers on how Antartic core samples show that the Earth was four degrees cooler 12,000 years ago? NO.
This is from Peter Watts’ blog (linked by Kate above). This is such a bizarre statement, that even though it is off-topic, I felt compelled to respond. The hypothetical anyone that Watts refers to can be held responsible by the thing(s) that makes us human (alluded to in the previous post by several people). The dark, unpleasant place that this leads to for the perpetrator of heinous, sociopathic activity is death; whether this happens by the system or by indivudals who will take a stand against the darkness in all of us and remove it to safeguard our homes, our families, and our way of life.
I don’t think that I want to live a world where I am the sum total of my biological imperatives. I prefer to believe in the best in all of us…that we have something that over-rides the chemical machinery of our brain. I choose to call that a soul, but it may indeed be something happening at the quantum level that only occurs at a sufficient level of complexity.
In Watt’s world, there would be a lot of girls who would be walking funny.
Uh. I think you took that out of context and frankly I think Peter Watts was being sarcastic with that line of thinking, but I could be wrong. Anyone else read it that way? I read that particular paragraph with an assumed edge of disbelief associated with the tone.
Like, since they released the pedophile, how long until no one is held accountable for their actions based on the fundamental wiring of the brain.
*shrugs*
SimCity Societies will monitor your sim’s carbon emissions: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/11/simcity-adds-global.html