Liar. (in Off-topic)


AdminTitan June 30 2009 5:42 PM EDT

Obama's Promise "If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up

H.R.2454
Well, of course this isn't a direct tax on the middle class, but it might as well be. Those of you living in the U.S. and getting your electricity from coal plants will see a high increase in your electricity bills. Whether you're making $20k a year, or half a million. It is likely that the price of food and other everyday items will go up as well. What kind of items aren't produced with electricity. Obama is pushing hard for this bill to be passed in the Senate, and now with Al Franken winning the election it will probably be passed soon. The Senate is now filibuster proof for the Democrats.

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- June 30 2009 5:43 PM EDT

Good, coal is garbage.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] June 30 2009 5:44 PM EDT

Artemis meant to entitle this thread "Liar!" and make at least one reference to either a). Robots b). mind-reading c). mind-reading robots.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

But seriously, don't get me started on cap-and-trade. I get rather steamed up about it.

AdminTitan June 30 2009 5:44 PM EDT

It's not just coal, it's any plant that produces carbon emissions, which is quite a bit in the U.S.

QBRanger June 30 2009 5:56 PM EDT

And this is news to whom?

He was and always will be a liar. From the first moments he campaigned for presidency.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] June 30 2009 5:59 PM EDT

How can anyone campaign for office and not lie? We aren't interested in hearing the harsh truth are we?

Goodfish June 30 2009 6:51 PM EDT

I've said for months and months that Obama's campaign was nothing but empty rhetoric...

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- June 30 2009 8:07 PM EDT

Welcome to politics? Name one president that didn't lie during his time.

*crickets*

QBsutekh137 June 30 2009 8:41 PM EDT

Such a simple interpretation.

Here are some more:

Monsanto makes a change to its Roundup-ready bean contracts.
= equals =
Food prices go up (unless ConAgra, the other agribusiness behemoth can cushion it, for a time).

OPEC decides to withhold product, thereby raising prices.
= equals =
We're ALL paying more for gas.

Domestic car companies go under due to to slow adaptation and a poor market.
= equals =
Who knows. Gov't bailout? Toyota bashing? Pwn'd by Japan?

Where's the lie in the OP? Whoever posted it is liar. "You will not see your taxes go up." Read. Even if energy costs, gas costs, and food costs go up...I don't see "taxes" in that sentence. So, it isn't a lie, is it?

My taxes haven't gone up, as far as I am aware.

And if you want the economy fixed without ANYTHING going up? Well, looks like we're back to the MP3 discussion where folks think they deserve something for nothing.

Good luck with that.

Lord Bob June 30 2009 9:19 PM EDT

Sut wins again.

Higher costs because of market values have NOTHING to do with income taxes.

Wake up.

AdminTitan June 30 2009 9:35 PM EDT

Did you even read the bill? Do you even know what I'm talking about? Something tells me no. Do some research before you talk about things.

Ernest-Scribbler June 30 2009 9:44 PM EDT

Its is impossible for any president to make everybody happy. Someone was always going to make a post like this. I suspect there will be significantly less in Obama's time. He does not control every matter in the country. Unless he becomes a dictator some things are beyond his control.

Secondly filibusters are the most ridiculous scheming comical mockery ever to insult this country's government. The whole system should have been filibuster proof. That doesn't mean i think the system doesn't have problems so don't list them to me:)

Thirdly these are my opinions not an attempt at stating facts so don't start arguing with me:P

Finally i had to fix 17 typo's before clicking preview:)

QBRanger June 30 2009 9:45 PM EDT

When market values are artificially inflated, we ALL pay more "taxes".

Energy tax, carbon tax, etc...

Read the bill please.

Ernest-Scribbler June 30 2009 9:45 PM EDT

Oh by the way the president who doesn't lie will also end all poverty and bring in world peace! Hurrah!

Lord Bob June 30 2009 9:52 PM EDT

"Did you even read the bill?"

Considering it is over 220 pages, I very much doubt you have yourself. But if you would like to point out any clause in any section that directly raises federal income taxes on those making under $250,000, I'll concede.

Lord Bob June 30 2009 9:54 PM EDT

"When market values are artificially inflated, we ALL pay more "taxes"."

INCOME taxes.

Not sales tax.

Please make the distinction.

Of course, if you conservatives would like to continue our dependence on dirty, sometimes foreign fuels...

AdminTitan June 30 2009 9:54 PM EDT

"Well, of course this isn't a direct tax on the middle class, but it might as well be."

You must have missed this the first read through. It's ok, I forgive you.

AdminTitan June 30 2009 9:55 PM EDT

"Of course, if you conservatives would like to continue our dependence on dirty, sometimes foreign fuels..."

This bill would do very little to change that. The suppliers aren't going to lose money, they're just going to increase the prices.

Lord Bob June 30 2009 9:57 PM EDT

"You must have missed this the first read through."

No, I saw it. I'm just calling your post out for the dishonest crap that it is.

But it's ok. I forgive you. After all, you're a conservative.

Lord Bob June 30 2009 9:58 PM EDT

"This bill would do very little to change that. The suppliers aren't going to lose money, they're just going to increase the prices."

Supply stays constant, demand goes down.. prices go up?

You fail economics forever.

AdminTitan June 30 2009 10:01 PM EDT

"Supply stays constant, demand goes down.. prices go up?"

We're Americans, do you really think that because the price of gas goes up we're going to stop driving less? How bout if the price of electricity goes up do you think we'll turn of the lights more, watch tv less? I doubt it.

In response to "dirty" oil: You should see the information being put out by a few from the EPA, yeah that's right the EPA, saying that Global Warming is not related to CO2 at all. But, yes if we can cut down on our dependence of foreign oil that would be a good thing. This bill, however, is not going to do that.

Lord Bob June 30 2009 10:03 PM EDT

Oh, and maybe you Republicans missed the part where - throughout the campaign AND after - Obama repeatedly said it was going to get worse before it gets better.

This is it right here. We all knew a green energy bill would hit hard at the start years in advance. Don't give me that "Obama was dishonest" crap. NO income taxes were raised, and exactly as he said before the election, we're going to need to make some sacrifices.

AdminTitan June 30 2009 10:05 PM EDT

Do you want me to list the times Obama has been dishonest? I can list more than one.

Lord Bob June 30 2009 10:07 PM EDT

"We're Americans, do you really think that because the price of gas goes up we're going to stop driving less?"

Dude,

If fuel efficiency is up, and we're importing less oil, demand goes down. And with it, prices. Common sense here.
Supply == equal.
Demand == down.
Prices == down.
Less money in the hands of foreign dictators == true.

"How bout if the price of electricity goes up do you think we'll turn of the lights more, watch tv less? I doubt it."

*sigh*

It's become obvious you do not understand the point of this bill.

"In response to "dirty" oil: You should see the information being put out by a few from the EPA, yeah that's right the EPA, saying that Global Warming is not related to CO2 at all."

The Bush-era EPA report? Yeah, because that was unbiased.

Lord Bob June 30 2009 10:08 PM EDT

"Do you want me to list the times Obama has been dishonest? I can list more than one. "

So can I.

This is about the climate/energy bill.

This is not one of them.

Bolfen June 30 2009 10:09 PM EDT

If you voted for a candidate for the rhetoric they made on the campaign trail then you are a fool.

You should vote for someone who you believe will analyze the continuously changing situation and make the right choices for the country.

The question should not be how well Obama (or any president) delivers on the disjointed package of campaign platform promises. It should be whether the country ends up better or worse. Unfortunately, that won't be clear for a while and we'll have plenty of hand-wringing from all sides in the meanwhile.

Lord Bob June 30 2009 10:16 PM EDT

"You should vote for someone who you believe will analyze the continuously changing situation and make the right choices for the country.
The question should not be how well Obama (or any president) delivers on the disjointed package of campaign platform promises. It should be whether the country ends up better or worse."

Incredibly well put! 10 points to you!

InebriatedArsonist June 30 2009 10:20 PM EDT

Mandos: Good, coal is garbage.

-Coal is also one of the cheapest, most reliable and most widespread fuels we have available. Moving away from coal production will be both expensive and time-consuming.

Name one president that didn't lie during his time.

-Obama hasn't exactly made a serious attempt at keeping many of his campaign promises. Hell, he couldn't even keep his promise to allow five days between the final passage of a bill and and his signature enacting the bill into law. He failed at what might very well be the easiest campaign pledge in the history of the United States.

Rubberduck[t]: How can anyone campaign for office and not lie? We aren't interested in hearing the harsh truth are we?

-Avoiding the harsh truth usually makes the problem worse over time. As much as Obama likes to blame every problem on somebody else, he won't be able to get away with it forever.

Sutekh137: Where's the lie in the OP? Whoever posted it is liar. "You will not see your taxes go up." Read. Even if energy costs, gas costs, and food costs go up...I don't see "taxes" in that sentence. So, it isn't a lie, is it?

-You're confusing tax increases with price increases caused by any number of business-related causes. This isn't about one company deciding to raise prices, it's about every company (except for the ones in certain districts and industries who get a free pass because Waxman and Markey needed to buy votes) paying a price to emit carbon because the government will require them to do so.

If HR. 2454 passes through Congress and is signed into law by the President, then the President will be enacting a tax on carbon emissions, which will lead to increased prices on energy and goods downstream. Just because the tax is partially hidden from the public doesn't mean it's not a tax the public will end up paying.

Lord Bob: Higher costs because of market values have NOTHING to do with income taxes.

-This isn't about market values, this is about the government adding a cost to the production of carbon. You also need to watch the video which Artemis linked to in his original post. Try skipping to 0:55, then watch Obama say the following: "You will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up." The energy tax, though it will fall upon energy producers, will be paid for by the end users and product consumers, so everyone's tax burden will indeed be going up. Promise broken.

kevlar June 30 2009 10:45 PM EDT

Sut doesn't win... just wait, you'll all be feeling the effects of the global warming crap very soon.

QBsutekh137 June 30 2009 11:38 PM EDT

Artemis, you state:

"We're Americans, do you really think that because the price of gas goes up we're going to stop driving less?"

(the completely erroneous double-negative aside, "stop driving less"?)...How is that the President's fault, and what does it have to do with your original post? How do economic issues other than taxes have to do with taxes? Why are you relating two completely unrelated things? I don't care how many lies you can point to if you insist on supporting the lie that is your OP.

And IA, you say, "You're confusing tax increases with price increases caused by any number of business-related causes." No, I am actually not the one doing that. The original poster, who is calling the President a "liar" did EXACTLY what you state. That's my point. Perhaps you'd like to read the whole thread (shouldn't take long to see the fallacy I was pointing out, since it is in post 1) and address me again? ANY NUMBER OF THINGS could "cost" the public. Like war. W got us into a very large conflict. You think that doesn't cost us? Is W a liar?

I am not confusing anything with anything else. I understand the things that can make certain prices go up.

Let me illustrate via absurdity. Let's say I made a post way back, even before CB existed. It would be related to George Bush, the older one, and would relate to certain goings-on in the early 1990s. Here's goes:

=================
LIAR.
by Sutekh T. Destroyer

George Bush said clearly on TV, during his campaign, "Read my lips -- no new taxes."

Then, he allowed the United States to go to war with Iraq. That cost our economy money. That caused economic troubles for some, including higher prices on certain commodities.

George Bush was a liar.
==================

Now, tell me if my little tale makes any sense whatsoever. Was George Bush a liar in this regard?

We're not talking about politics, we are talking about bald-faced logic and the ability to reason in the simplest of scenarios. Seriously, this is like being able to color in the lines. I could explain this to third-graders, and most of them would "get it" on the simple basis of "these things aren't related."

kevlar June 30 2009 11:45 PM EDT

heh Sut... "certain prices will go up"... everything in price is going to go up... and it will affect everyone, not the higher tax bracket that he initially said would be. People scoffed at the posts I posted about the Iraq withdrawl time, bla.... just u wait. Scoff at this next :)

three4thsforsaken June 30 2009 11:58 PM EDT

Are we really arguing about what the definition of "taxes" is? Or what Obama meant by "taxes"?

C'mon guys... it seems like we're just looking for things to get angry about, a reason to condemn the man to a lair. Economy is bad, things are going to get more expensive, are we really surprised?

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:00 AM EDT

kevlar, if gaining control of energy policy and pollutants forces prices to rise, then so be it. Did someone tell you there's a free lunch around the corner or something? Promise you a rose garden, perhaps?

If I said education is not doing what we want, so we need to raise more money for education, would folks be demanding that we have better education and yet DON'T raise any taxes, bonds, or _anything_? Change has to be facilitated by _something_.

Do you think at least gaining some control of carbon emissions is important? I understand coal is a good source of energy, and we have a lot of it. That doesn't mean we should do whatever we want with it without any regard for future detriment. Will this bill help? I have no idea. I'm not an energy expert. Neither is Artemis. But what I do know is that an energy policy bill has NOTHING to do with "Obama's Promise" mentioned in the OP. Stay on task. Stay focused. I'm not talking about energy policy or taxes. I am talking about the consistency of the OP. Respond about that.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:02 AM EDT

lol man, Al Gore is sitting on millions because of that crap... and now they are going to use it to raise taxes on EVERYTHING... not somethings...EVERYTHING... lol. It aint right.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:04 AM EDT

Not to mention, Sut... if he said he would do such a thing prior to being elected and then got elected... then I would still hate it but couldn't hate against it as much. Being he is now in office and pulling these cheap shots at our expense... teh h8 is on.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 12:04 AM EDT

IA, you have to be able to make the distinction here. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that you can't grasp this.

"Try skipping to 0:55, then watch Obama say the following: "You will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up.""

Again, please explain how higher energy costs DIRECTLY increase -these specific- taxes on low income Americans.

They don't.

Obama has always said, as has already been pointed out, that we were going to need to make sacrifices. He said this during the campaign, and after. He warned us things would get worse before they got better, something McCain did not have the junk to do.

Anyone who has even moderately been following the proposals to clean up our energy policies knows that at no point were we shielded from the fact that a shift to greener, renewable energy would cost more in the short term. We knew this. They didn't hide it. Nobody lied about this.

It does NOT raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
It WILL raise energy costs.
We knew this was coming.
Any sane person can see the difference between these two things.

On this SPECIFIC issue, Obama has never been anything than honest with us. Anybody who says otherwise has either confused two separate issues (energy policy and taxes) or has simply not been paying attention.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:05 AM EDT

That's your response to the OP? Oh dear. Straight up logic is entirely lost on you.

And we wonder why threads have a hard time staying civil and on-topic. Lacking mastery of simple causality will tend to do that.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:06 AM EDT

lol, always said we would have to make sacrifices. Anyone and their mother could say such a thing, but how far does that statement go? Is there a limit? How far will it go? That is scary to defend.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 12:07 AM EDT

"if he said he would do such a thing prior to being elected and then got elected... "

Uh, he did. Look it up. Those who paid attention saw this coming. This isn't new news.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:07 AM EDT

Dang it, LB, you snuck in there -- my previous post was @kevlar.

I am in violent agreement with Lord Bob, and bow to the clarity of his most recent post. Well stated.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:08 AM EDT

I'm befuddled what it is with most of the posters in this forum and logic.... you guy speak of logic but to what avail? I said a comment and bs'ing about logic doesn't solve or argue the fact further. If you are going to use the word logic... please explain what you mean and set it straight. Don't hid beind a word.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:09 AM EDT

LB, his promise was to raise and tax the rich...the higher class, the higher tax brackets... NOT everyone and their mother. You guys need to do a little more research lol.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:10 AM EDT

You're right, kevlar, you shouldn't have to sacrifice a thing. Not ever. No way. Just close your eyes, download some free music, go fill up your tank with gas at the cheapest prices most anywhere in the world, and, oh yeah, don't forget to keep whining about anything that might ever force you take responsibility for the Earth, your fellow man, or even yourself. Just keep living the dream, man!

kevlar July 1 2009 12:11 AM EDT

Sut, I'm losing some deep respect for you, wow :O Seriously?

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:14 AM EDT

Hiding behind logic? As if one ever needs to hide when one is logical and consistent? I am about as transparent as glass.

But OK, kevlar. I won't need to "hide" if you answer this question:

Do you think the original post points out a direct correlation between a promise Obama made about taxes and the fact that an energy bill is going through? If so, please explain how the two are related.

That will help get to the bottom of this issue.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:15 AM EDT

kevlar, if you think the OP is consistent, then there is no possible way you could have ever had respect for me, nor is there any way I would desire it. Consistency is all that matters, and it is far bigger than I am or will ever be. Please, respect that, not me.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:16 AM EDT

wow, so why not just say that instead of going off on a lunar orbit tangent like you did? The fact that he said he was going to tax the higher brackets, and now is imposing an energy bill that will effect everyone is simply 100% against what his original policy stated. It effects everything, cost of milk, haircuts, vending machines... this bill is beyond what this thread is making it out to be.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:20 AM EDT

The bill is an energy bill. It is about energy.

I have been asking the same thing in every post on the thread, so please don't try to make it sound as if I have ever been anywhere except solidly on the circle.

I said the original post, calling Obama a liar, was a lie itself. Because an energy bill has nothing to do with a promise about taxes.

Do you see what I am saying?

Anything beyond that is an ENTIRELY different topic getting into the economy, energy policy, the legislative process, etc.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 12:23 AM EDT

"Dang it, LB, you snuck in there -- my previous post was @kevlar."

I know. *grin*

"LB, his promise was to raise and tax the rich...the higher class, the higher tax brackets... NOT everyone and their mother."

HE'S NOT TAXING THE REST OF US!!!!

AAAAAAHHHHH!!!

At this point I think he's doing this on purpose.

Kev, read the thread. Read it. Either you have not, or you're trolling. The energy bill will NOT tax low income Americans. It WILL raise energy costs.

These are two separate things.

Higher costs are not income taxes.

There is ZERO dishonestly here outside the posts of Artemis, the other conservatives pushing this lie, and yourself.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:23 AM EDT

Sut, I have never directed anything towards you. The fact that you think the energy bill has nothing to do with his initial policy/talks/speeches is your own undoing. Their are loop holes in politics... and this my friend... is a huge one. Whether we agree or not or fight like little kids on the playground. It soon will hit, and then we can continue this.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:26 AM EDT

[Admin Edit]. You guys and that trolling word disgust me. And you use it too freely. What the hell are you talking about that it is different? How is raising energy costs not like raising taxes? It's the same thing but in a different venue. That is the problem with everything... we can hide things behind other things and make it reality. Look at postage stamps. Research the increase of cost of stamps... and see how often they have gone up within the last 10 years compared to the last 100. We need some seeing eye dogs in America... wow.

Admin{CB1}Slayer333 July 1 2009 12:31 AM EDT

Kevlar, that was quite inappropriate.

Personal attacks are NOT permitted, which means this thread probably won't be open much longer.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:33 AM EDT

Slayer, I'm done with the word "Trolling" being used so freely. Deal with it as you must, but I'm sick of the weak frequenting the word "Troll" when they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 12:34 AM EDT

Go ahead and close it Slayer. This was a retarded thread from the beginning.

The fact that people can't distinguish between income taxes and energy consumption costs is just mind boggling.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:36 AM EDT

OK, kev. So then George Bush (the elder) is a liar too, according to my previous post. If you agree to that, then I have no issues here. Like I said, consistency is King.

If you think that higher energy bills (which Obama isn't enforcing, he is enforcing pollution rules, which have ramifications, because, well, you know, making responsible energy policy is hard. No one ever said otherwise.) are the same as higher taxes to the extent Obama is directly breaking his specific tax promise, then that is fine. But it then stands to reason that I can pretty much equate any two things from here on out, even by the most tenuous of strings, and you will be compelled to agree. Does that sound reasonable?

kevlar July 1 2009 12:38 AM EDT

lol, the fact that someone has to use the troll cop out in a political discussion is mind boggling. If you disagree, disagree. Don't act like a kindegartner and start name calling. If someone, like a LOT of other people see the energy bill as a disguise at increasing taxes, then so be it. Don't cry about someone disagreeing wif you.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:39 AM EDT

kevlar, if that had been what the OP had said, what you just said, I wouldn't even be on this thread.

However, that is not what the OP says. All you have to do is read the thread's title to see it goes further than that.

ResistanZ July 1 2009 12:40 AM EDT

Did you take into account that the value of American money has changed... a lot........... in 100 years?

kevlar July 1 2009 12:43 AM EDT

why are things so superficial? You can always go deeper with an issue. Why do you guys hug the title of a thread so seriously? I mean if you can go off on tangents and trolling accusations so easily... why is it so hard to grasp another dimension to the discussion? Whether you agree with it or not? Why the hostility and uncompromise? lol... good God.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:44 AM EDT

I'm not sure I follow you, O'X? In what regard?

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:46 AM EDT

kevlar, I happen to believe calling someone a "liar" is a fairly serious thing, whether that person is the President, a fellow CB'er, a homeless guy -- doesn't matter. If we take such a thing lightly, what is next? Accusing someone of thievery? Deceit? Cheating?

In this case, the title is the _very_ thing that made me speak up.

What would it take for you to speak up on something? What level of name-calling before you took pause and maybe said something was out of line or inconsistent? Honest question, I'm curious.

three4thsforsaken July 1 2009 12:46 AM EDT

Kevlar, I don't even understand what you are arguing about anymore. You've dropped/ignored so many arguments and it's mind boggling.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 12:48 AM EDT

Kev, I'm not hiding behind anything. I said you either failed to read and understand the points that costs != taxes, which any average third grader can figure out on their own, or you were simply trying to antagonize. If the latter is wrong, back up your opinion that energy costs == taxes on the lower classes by something a bit more substantial than the economic equivalent of six degrees of separation.

kevlar July 1 2009 12:51 AM EDT

LB, you're trying to preach to a choir that is singing rock'n'roll. I got where you are coming from, I know the title of the thread... but when it comes to an "energy" bill... that is a tax to me and to a LOT of other people. Don't try and say it's just me that feels this way. It's all over the radio, news, etc. The fact that an "energy" bill is even in existence is mind boggling. What doesn't require energy to function? EVERYTHING. Therefore, everything from the cost of apples to paper clips is going to go up in price. We can bicker about it all you want... but it won't get us anywhere. When the costs go up, then we can shoot the breeze.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 12:54 AM EDT

So do you consider any utility bill a tax?

Water?
Electricity?
Gas?

..phone?
..cable and internet?!?!?

NONE of these are taxes. They are all run by private companies who you pay for their service.

If the price of gas goes up, that is not the government taxing you. That's the market.

ResistanZ July 1 2009 12:57 AM EDT

Sut, I am replying to when Kevlar said following:

"That is the problem with everything... we can hide things behind other things and make it reality. Look at postage stamps. Research the increase of cost of stamps... and see how often they have gone up within the last 10 years compared to the last 100. We need some seeing eye dogs in America... wow."

kevlar July 1 2009 12:58 AM EDT

... utility is limited.. and each of those is their own entity. Again see my comment about postage stamps.

ENERGY is inclusive...of everything ... EVERYTHING, inluding all the things you mentioned...under just the utility category.

AdminNightStrike July 1 2009 12:59 AM EDT

> They are all run by private companies who you pay for their service.

Actually, in America, most water/sewer is government run. Power/phone is private, though.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 1:00 AM EDT

"Again see my comment about postage stamps. "

Which is likewise not a tax, though it is a government owned company.

Energy is everywhere, yes. It doesn't mean paying for it is a tax.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 1:01 AM EDT

O'X, sorry, you are making sense, I hadn't stayed up on all the posts... Yeah, I suppose any argument needs to be adjusted by inflation/cost-of-living factors... It would be mighty cheap if postage were still only a couple cents per letter!

Lord Bob July 1 2009 1:02 AM EDT

"Actually, in America, most water/sewer is government run."

I thought most cities had private water. We don't here in Harrison Twp., bur I was mistaken about elsewhere. I stand corrected on that minor segment of the greater issue.

kevlar July 1 2009 1:03 AM EDT

lol I'm seriously speechless.

AdminNightStrike July 1 2009 1:06 AM EDT

> I stand corrected on that minor segment of the greater issue.

I love pointing out flaws in minor, inconsequential, tangential points in a statement that don't affect the overall intent. Mainly because people do it to me all the time, and I hate it tremensley. That's a combination of immensely and tremendously. I couldn't decide which I wanted to use :)

Lord Bob July 1 2009 1:11 AM EDT

You can go ahead and close this thread while you're at it, NightStrike.

kevlar July 1 2009 1:13 AM EDT

I'm sure if NS wants to close the thread, he will do it without any outside help. NS is capable.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 1:16 AM EDT

I didn't say he needed help. I requested, twice now, that an admin close this.

If they do, good. If not, eh.

But a request is far different than implying he needs help.

Of course, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between any two things, so, yeah.

Cube July 1 2009 1:27 AM EDT

Technically, I think Artemis is right if you stretch definitions a little bit.

In the spirit of things, every politician doesn't do exactly what they say they are going to do, and you all already knew that. So in that sense, Artemis is dead wrong.

Cube July 1 2009 1:48 AM EDT

2. Obama was most likely referring to income taxes. You assume the broader term.

3. I'm not reading the bill, it's 1300 pages+. Why in God's name did you link it? If Congress didn't read it, then I'm sure as hell not reading it.

4. I've actually thought Cap and Trade should have been implemented a long time ago. There has to be economic incentive to innovate or it won't happen. We also already have far lower energy bills than most of Europe, and that's why they're (making all the innovations in/actually using) alternative energy. Using more alternative energy, will ease the transition as fuels get more expensive.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 1:55 AM EDT

"Technically, I think Artemis is right if you stretch definitions a little bit."

Well, you would have to really, really stretch the heck out of it...

"2. Obama was most likely referring to income taxes. You assume the broader term."

He was. Not "most likely." Definitely.

Cube July 1 2009 1:57 AM EDT

LB, you're right. I have a horrible tendency to qualify my statements too much.

InebriatedArsonist July 1 2009 2:05 AM EDT

Cube:: 2. Obama was most likely referring to income taxes. You assume the broader term.

Lord Bob: He was. Not "most likely." Definitely.

-He was most certainly not referring only to income taxes. I mentioned this in my original post, but it apparently went unread, I'll restate it:

"You also need to watch the video which Artemis linked to in his original post. Try skipping to 0:55, then watch Obama say the following: 'You will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up.'"

Here's the link to the video, so you don't have to bother scrolling up.

Cube July 1 2009 2:17 AM EDT

I still consider that a strict interpretation of the statement.

Strict interpretations will make anyone a 'liar' especially politicians.

AdminTitan July 1 2009 4:08 AM EDT

"'You will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up.'"

You're right, there's totally another way to interpret that. Assuming that taxes would not be increased for the middle class was dumb of me. What can I say though, I am conservative...

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 1 2009 6:32 AM EDT


"Taxes" in the American money-filched-before-I-can-spend-it sense. Other items not related to his list of taxes that will not go up: sales tax, property tax, gas tax, cigarette tax.

As in your original post, "Well, of course[,] this isn't a direct tax ..." No. It isn't.

There are plenty of valid political arguments to indulge in, this is not one of them.

Go Al!

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 1 2009 6:36 AM EDT


NS: Does the extra 'e' in tremensely actually belong before the l? It's a much better word than irregardless and my new goal in life is to popularize it.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 7:31 AM EDT

I'm trying to get 'majoritively' into a dictionary (with or without the 'u'). Just to annoy my dad. ;)

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] July 1 2009 7:52 AM EDT

I think the point is; we are all going to be paying more for energy because of some kooky, quarter-baked scheme Waxman and Markey wanted to make money off.
John Boehner is now my new favorite member of Congress.

Mikel July 1 2009 8:31 AM EDT

OH boy, I don't even want to get started with this junk.

Sut & LB, Since you two seem to not have any problems with this 'tax', then can you two please start supplementing my income with the differences in costs as the prices of things start to go up?
Thanks, I'll send you my PP email addy in a pm!

Love ya guys!

QBRanger July 1 2009 9:20 AM EDT

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The tax cut for 95% of Americans turned out to be a little $400 per worker tax credit, less than $8 per week, just for this year and next. Under the recently passed Democrat budget, that tax cut is gone after next year.

That will be replaced instead with the new cap-and-trade cost burden that will be paid by everyone in the prices of everything we buy.

I guess things depend on you definition of "taxes". Considering the cap and trade is a "cost" burden, one can easily say or deny it is a tax.

Either way, this is not the first time Obama has directly lied about something he stated in his campaign.

Examples include a 5 day window for signing laws, not opting out of campaign financing, and closing Gitmo. Among others.

However... as a politician, one says things to get elected. Promises that are frequently broken. Bush I did that with taxes and cost him the next election.

I can only hope the same happens with Obama. Or at least most people come to their senses and see what he his really about. Hopefully the 2012 election will be more about ideas and less about race and a love affair the media has with one candidate.

AdminNightStrike July 1 2009 9:21 AM EDT

> NS: Does the extra 'e' in tremensely actually belong before the l? It's a much better word than irregardless and my new goal in life is to popularize it.

Actually, I intended it that way. "ley" was a typo for "ely". Thanks for the watchful eye!

Note that after I post this, I'm adding it to the dictionary :)

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 9:55 AM EDT

Don't be absurd, Mikel. That is about the most moronic thing I have ever heard you say (I'm a little surprised, to be honest).

I won't supplement your income for this particular policy change any more than folks have supplemented mine to pay for the War in Iraq. If you think that war isn't "costing" all of us, you must have your head pretty far into the sand. War isn't free. It has and is affecting the economy (not to mention its affect on lives -- maybe you should send your condolences to the families who have lost members instead of sending me that check, after all).

Other policies I disagree with that have incurred costs:

-- Copyright changes, allowing Disney (e.g.) to hold onto their intellectual assets longer than was ever intended, allowing them to prop up prices through exclusivity and false scarcity.
-- Tax changes that cause blank media to be taxed because other people use the blank media for non-fair-use processes.
-- The war on drugs, costing the country billions, while the still-criminal nature of drug dealing leads to hard crime like kill-crazy rampages in Mexico.
-- Laws allowing wire-tapping of my phones, infringing on my civil liberties.

I guess your check will have to include monetary, life, and liberty compensation. Let me know what dollar figure you settle on, and I'll let you know where to send it.

And if you do send me the check for all of that, I'll send it right back to you to pay for this shot at better energy policy. Totally worth it.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 9:56 AM EDT

Cube, I find the phrase "Technically, I think Artemis is right if you stretch definitions a little bit." inconsistent. Not sure where you are coming down on all of this, since later posts seem to be disagreeing with the OP, but saying something is technically right if you stretch definitions is like saying 1 + 1 is technically 3 if you stretch the definition of 1 into 1.5. Nothing can be "technically" correct of you change the underlying definitions. That makes it technically INcorrect.

Unless, of course, you are stretching the definition of the word "technically", as well. *smile*

The original post is incorrect, inconsistent, and unnecessarily defamatory. It's hyperbole. And it's annoying.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 10:26 AM EDT

I still support that the UK should make prostitution legal. Tax it and regulate it.

At least that way it becomes marginally safer for those involved, and generates a little more revenue.

It's like folk who want Boxing banned. It'll just go underground and Bare Knuckle fighting will increase. Making it more dangerous for those involved.

However, I think I'm straying off topic now. ;)

QBRanger July 1 2009 10:33 AM EDT

And I disagree Sut.

The first post is very accurate and quite on point.

It is exactly as stated, without any hyperbole or misstatements.

Perhaps Obama misremembered his promises. Yes, with an 's' as this is not the first one he has misremembered.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 11:24 AM EDT

Ranger, you fail basic logic.

I will be sure to implement this style of debate in future arguments, and all will have to comply with my assertions. Consistency and logic have been removed from this arena.

By the way, the exbow is not in any need of fixing. You are entirely wrong on that point. Why? Because licorice comes in multiple colors.

My logic cannot be dissected, refuted, or negated. I can match any word with any other, any cause to any effect, and can mold definitions into any form I wish.

I look forward to your counter.

three4thsforsaken July 1 2009 11:29 AM EDT

"By the way, the exbow is not in any need of fixing. You are entirely wrong on that point. Why? Because licorice comes in multiple colors. "

Hahaha, this made me laugh. :D

QBRanger July 1 2009 11:30 AM EDT

Sut,

Please do not insult me like that.

There are many people who feel the exact same as myself and Art.

Are we all logic deprived?

Of course not.

How would you like it if I said your insane for believing X, Y or Z?

I believe that Art's post is very accurate. Call it what you will, it is a carbon usage tax that will effect all people with more expensive energy. How is that flawed logic?

But if you want a concrete example, just look at the cigarette tax. 1 buck more a pack. And who does that effect? The lower class which is the predominate smoker.

But I guess my logic is just not of Earth but possibly something in the Anteris system of planets, huh?

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 11:48 AM EDT

Ranger, logic doesn't care about feelings, nor have I ever stated anyone's opinion on Obama as being incorrect or invalid.

I am talking about the logic of the OP. Consistency. Come with me on a little journey, and I mean this in all earnestness.

Take all of the emotion and specificity out of the original post. Think generically, universally. Look at the structure of the post. If you disagree with what I see on the basic structure, let me know which part of the progression I am about to lay out falls down.

1. The subject of the thread is "Liar." Artemis is calling someone a liar (doesn't matter who). He is not just saying there is a lie, he is not saying the lying is just a temporary behavior. The original post is directly stating that some human being is a "Liar".
2. Artemis goes on to support his claim that the person discussed in step 1 is, in fact a liar.
3. A liar is someone who states something that is untrue, or makes a promise and then goes directly against the promise. There are other types of lies, but this definition covers the direction Artemis goes in order to support his claim.
4. The promise that the person in step one made dealt with a certain thing, we will call it Thing A. Throughout the thread, no one has found any part of the promise that states anything other than Thing A. This is the promise that would need to be shown to be broken in order to fulfill the definition of step 3.
5. Artemis attempts to fulfill step 3 by saying that the promise was broken due to the fact that the person from step 1 DID do something, we will call the thing that the person did Thing B. I do not refute that Thing B has been done by the person from Step 1.
6. Now all that remains is to show that Thing B breaks the promise of Thing A, and step 3 will be completed.
6. The original post admits that Thing B does not really relate to Thing A directly, and several other posters on the thread have acknowledged that, at the very least, it can certainly be argued that Thing B is not related to Thing A.
7. Step 3 is not fulfilled. The person from step 1 made a promise about Thing A, and the action more recently taken (Thing B) does not break that promise by any argument presented in the original post, nor subsequently in the thread.

Therefore, the logic of the original post does not support the accusation that the person from step 1 is a "liar".

That is a logical assessment of the language.

Let me know which steps you disagree with, or definitions within those steps you find suspect.

This argument is NOT, I repeat, NOT a discussion on taxes, energy policy, politics, or pollution. It is ONLY an analysis of the original post based on generic, structural logic.

Cube July 1 2009 11:57 AM EDT

Yeah, what I wrote doesn't make much sense, just leave it that I agree with Sutekh.

QBRanger July 1 2009 12:03 PM EDT

Ok,

1) Obama stated no new taxes for those making less than 250k a year.

2) This bill is a carbon based tax. A TAX.

3) Everyone will pay this tax. Even those making less than 250k a year.

4) Therefore Obama broke his no tax promise.

My logic is not flawed.

There is no emotions involved.

You fail to see this bill as promoting and enacting a new tax. I see it like millions of others who do see it as a tax.

You CANNOT say I fail basic logic. You may say I am not interpreting the bill correctly. I cannot argue with you on that as our views on it are different.

But to say I fail basic logic is just not logical.

QBRanger July 1 2009 12:07 PM EDT

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

This is your Thing A.

It has the key word just near the end of ANY.

Any is a mighty powerful word. All inclusive if my thinking is correct.

A carbon based tax is a tax. Therefore he is raising our taxes, everyones taxes. Therefore breaking his promise.

People see to think his statement was only for income tax. That is the illogical part of their thinking.

Instead of just saying income tax, our president went further to describe numerous types of other taxes and then added the word ALL.

My logic is not flawed or wrong. Peoples interpretation of his statement is, leading to their flawed reasoning.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:20 PM EDT

Ranger, good points, let me take a look...

Basically, you are saying Thing A is "raising taxes for people making less than 250K a year". I agree. And you say Thing B is a carbon emissions tax, which I also agree with. Taking your points verbatim, then:

1) Obama stated no new taxes for those making less than 250k a year.
I AGREE.

2) This bill is a carbon based tax. A TAX.
I AGREE.

3) Everyone will pay this tax. Even those making less than 250k a year.
I DISAGREE

4) Therefore Obama broke his no tax promise.
I DISAGREE

Let me explain where 3 falls down, again, using generic, logical steps.

First, not everyone will pay the tax. That is clearly not the case by ANY definition of the bill, no matter how many pages it contains. The carbon tax is on carbon emitters. Yes, I am talking about the technical tax itself, Thing B, in the bill. If we even stray one level of indirection from that, then I can equate anything to anything (and I already put my licorice away). I'm not going to do that.

So, not everyone will pay the tax.

But, all Artemis would have to show in his OP is that someone making less than 250K a year WOULD directly pay the carbon emission tax.

I can't be sure, because I do not have the time to read the whole bill, but I doubt any carbon-emitter making less than 250K a year would have to pay any tax in relation to the bill. Any company large enough to be affected is going to be a lot larger than that. If you would like to discuss that in more depth, I am more than willing to listen, because this is now the logical lynch-pin of the progression.

If no one making less than 250K is affected by the carbon tax, then you are asserting that the sub-250K folks will have COSTS increased, not TAXES, and you already stated in a previous post: "I guess things depend on you definition of "taxes". Considering the cap and trade is a "cost" burden, one can easily say or deny it is a tax." The original post also makes an admission that increasing costs is not really a tax. If it has been admitted that increasing costs can validly be considered NOT to be a tax, that is all that is required to make step 3 in my previous list impossible to attain.

Therefore, Thing B does not relate to Thing A without allowing an indirect attribution. But if you do that, then I can attribute just about ANYTHING to "taxes". I can call inflation a tax. I can call not having medical insurance a tax. I can call getting laid off a tax. I can call a salary cut a tax. I can call the Iraq War a tax.

While one CAN do any of those things, it doesn't make sense to do so any more than my licorice comment does, because it falls down on basic topical consistency, thereby undermining any foundation for a civil, rational discussion. I am operating under the assumption that you would prefer civil, rational discussions to the alternatives?

I suppose the only question that remains is whether or not indirect references such as equating costs and taxes should be considered valid, logical debate techniques. If they are, then I can certainly bring my licorice to every discussion.

Cube July 1 2009 12:23 PM EDT

'Any is a mighty powerful word. All inclusive if my thinking is correct'

This is the flaw as well as the overly strict interpretation. I think he pretty clearly meant no direct taxes. You may count this as iffy, but that's how I imagine most people interpret the phrase. Not only that, this cap and trade was also in his campaign so it's not as if he sprung this on anyone. Also, McCain supported a similar idea, so it's not as if you had a choice either.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93562705
August 13, 2008

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:24 PM EDT

Ranger, in your more recent post you are still equating cost increases with tax increases. No tax anywhere on any form I will pay will say "carbon emission tax".

The quote you state starts with the 250K limit, and says no taxes will raise. I completely agree with you, and never disputed that.

I disputed that a cost increase be considered a tax, because that's a fact. A cost increase is not a tax any more than my losing my job could be considered a tax, even though they both result in me having less money.

Can we talk about the difference of opinion we have on that instead of re-hashing all the things we agree on? I don't need to see any more Obama quotes of bill excerpts. I have already agreed on what Obama said and what the bill does. We agree on Thing A and Thing B, except you add a level of indirection to Thing B, taking on, "therefore it is a tax increase for everyone. That simply is not true given any reasonable definitions of the language involved.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:26 PM EDT

Cube, I don't even have to read that. NPR is a tool of the liberal elite media, so of course they are going to report on things that help Obama look more consistent and make it look like the political Right would have done the same thing, anyway

Tsk, tsk.

Cube July 1 2009 12:26 PM EDT

And philosophically, I'd rather have a politician make the right decision, than keep their campaign promises.

This is why it never made sense to me to hate 'flip floppers'.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 12:41 PM EDT

More in line witht he topic, I would like Election Promises to be binding contracts.

Don't dare promise something in the run up to an election you aren't sure you can keep.

If an election promise is broken, hung parliament and a new general election. There and then.

It's like tendering buisness to companies, who supply the offers on what they will do, then when you employ them, they do something utterly different.

It doesn't hold in business, it shouldn't hold in Government.

Maybe politicans might even become a little more honest if we were to take this approach. ;)

Cube July 1 2009 12:44 PM EDT

Just an example where that would be very bad, if the economic crisis hadn't appeared until right after the election, and we were bound from stimulating the economy at all for 4 years.

Adaptable > Predictable.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 12:49 PM EDT

Don't make a globally blanket promise then.

Don't ever pormise (just for exmaple) Taxes won't ever rise!

Promise something much more reasonable, something you're able to keep.

We're electing these people on the basis of what they claim to be able to provide.

It's like me promising to take over CB and fixing all the bugs, fixing the Elbow, intorucing a RB, etc. So you all make me lead Dev by popular vote. Then when I get control, I do none of that and instead add stick man graphics.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 12:53 PM EDT

Um, then GL, all any candidate could ever say would be "I'll show up to work." How could anyone promise anything, and therefore how could constituents get a feel for who their views mesh with (or at least choose the least of the evils, as is so often the case...)

Things change too quickly to hold people THAT accountable. Are you saying if I struggle at a new job, even though in the interview I said I would add value to the company, that I should be immediately sacked? You have to hold yourself to the same level of responsibility you would the politicians.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 12:58 PM EDT

Nah, they could give the direction they want to take the country. Make Jobs, join Europe, leave Europe, etc, etc. And you could vote for whichever meshes with your views and desires the most.

And I don't expect to have to hold myself (although personally I hold myself to a might more stringent code) to the same level of responsibility to the guys and girls trying to run the country.

That's a lot more responsibility, and should be accompanied by a higher level of accountability.

QBRanger July 1 2009 1:00 PM EDT

Sut,

At least hopefully we are off the "Ranger's logic sucks" part of the debate.

I will not infer what Obama meant or did not mean to say in the quote used. Direct or indirect taxes.

But when you raise the taxes on energy producers, that cost in the form of indirect taxes come from the people.

Different ways of seeing the same situation. That I can agree upon.

We can debate his other lies in other threads if you want.

Cube July 1 2009 1:10 PM EDT

GL maybe that'd fly in Europe, but here we like our buzz words.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 1:26 PM EDT

Ranger, I see no point in discussing anyone's lies. Based on the inferences and indirect attributions made on this thread to define someone as a "liar", I can assuredly call myself a liar, you a liar, and anyone else on the planet a liar.

So why discuss specifics if everyone is a liar?

In other words, until you flat-out agree that the original post falls over when analyzed logically, your logic will still be in question from my perspective. Discussing _anything_ with such a person is over before it even begins, so I don't do it.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 1:28 PM EDT

GL, let me know when you figure out what sort of court or committee gets to decide on whether or not a politician has actually "lied".

By your reckoning, we should be canning Obama already, then, because Artemis has proclaimed Obama a "liar".

Or are you saying Artemis doesn't get to decide? Who, then?

QBRanger July 1 2009 2:04 PM EDT

Aside from this lie, Obama has lied numerous times in his political career.

However, let me propose a scenario.

Right now cigars cost about 5 bucks each.

Congress passes a tax on cigars, of 5 dollars per cigar sold.

Who pays that tax? The cigar maker? The cigar seller?

Neither.

I am not and Art is not making any inferrences. These are direct facts.

Refuse or do not refuse to accept them. They are real.

It is the person who consumes the cigar that pays it, in higher cigar prices.

Therefore a tax on cigars directly effects their price and is in fact a tax on the consumer.

The same is with the carbon tax. Do you think the coal producers or energy companies are going to pay this tax? Of course not.

The consumer, you and me are going to pay it. Everyone, including those making less than 250k a year are.

But because I refuse to see your interpretation of things, I have no logical reasoning? Who is hypocritical now?

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 2:17 PM EDT

Your cigar question has a very simple answer, depending on the details of the tax:

If the tax is on the making of cigars, then the cigar maker pays the taxes, and will likely pass that expense onto the customer (but maybe not, more on that later). So, two things have happened in that case: taxes have raised for the cigar manufacturer, and costs have raised for the cigar consumer. Two different things, taxes and costs. Different words, different things. Different. No definition could ever make them the same thing. They are not the same.

If the tax is on the consumption of cigars, then the consumer is paying the tax. So, that is a direct taxation on the consumer.

The scenario being discussed in this thread is the first one. Carbon-emitters are getting taxed, and will likely pass that cost onto consumers as allowed by competition, the marketplace, and regulatory laws (where such utilities are regulated by the government).

Here is why there is a difference: if cigar consumption is taxed, there is nothing anyone can do about it. The consumer will have to pay the tax. The lowest aspect of the economic cycle is being taxed. That is why when cigarette taxes go up, the cigarette smoker has to pay. That is a direct tax. If taxes are placed on the cigarette companies (which I am sure they pay their fair share), they may or may not raise prices.

If a tax is placed on cigar MAKERS, but cigar makers already have high margins and high competition, then it is possible that a plucky cigar maker will NOT increase prices in order to get more market share. In fact, if all of the cigar makers go into a room and all decide to raise prices in exactly the same way at exactly the same time, that could be considered collusion and price-fixing, and is very much against the law.

Direct taxation at the lowest level is VERY different from taxation at the higher levels -- it is one of the fundamental differences in philosophy between the political left and right. That is why taxation at the higher levels is often used more to dictate policy than actually make money. Obama, in my opinion, would love it if in 20-30 years the carbon emission tax yields zero dollars -- that means the policy is working, and energy is getting cleaner.

I am not a hypocrite because everything I have said has been completely consistent and logical. Hypocrisy is not possible in that case, unless, once again, someone is messing with definitions.

Cube July 1 2009 2:23 PM EDT

I'm sorry your interpretation really isn't want most people think of when they hear that statement. And you can't just choose a far out interpretation and expect people to fall in line with that making Obama, a liar.

You're just nitpicking, so you can call him a liar.

There are far better reasons and arguments if you want to call Obama a liar; this isn't one of them.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 2:29 PM EDT

Sut just won the thread again.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 2:36 PM EDT

Actually, the thread won me, much like Soviet Russia in that last post. I just finally was able to crystallize just WHY costs are different than low-level taxation. I hadn't let the idea fully ferment in my head, so writing it out was good for me! *smile*

Cube July 1 2009 2:53 PM EDT

Here's an example I came up with; correct me if it's wrong:


Popsicles cost 50 cents to make.

If I sell popsicles at $1 each, lets say I sell 5, I make $2.50.

If I get taxed $1000 per popsicle, I sell 0, and lose money for every popsicle made, I lose my $2.50 spent producing them, and then quit the business. No consumer ever paid the tax. They lost the value of my business existing, but never ever paid a tax.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 2:58 PM EDT

That is one extreme, and would be an example of a "stick" tax (in carrot vs. stick terms) gone wrong. If a tax entirely kills an industry then that is a whole 'nother ball of wax (that we all end up paying for anyway). Economics is fun.

But no, in your case, no one ever pays the tax, that's for sure...

Cube July 1 2009 3:12 PM EDT

It seemed apt though because I figure that is the long-long term goal of this idea though to kill the coal industry, which is a worthy eventual goal. In order to make alternatives more economically favorable.

I also think it's fair in the sense that they need to pay the fair share for their cost to the environment.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:13 PM EDT

"I also think it's fair in the sense that they need to pay the fair share for their cost to the environment."

Wait...what?

Cube July 1 2009 3:15 PM EDT

Popsicle sticks kill baby animals. Didn't you know?

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 3:16 PM EDT

Hm, I suppose I am torn on that. I am hoping they can use their supply channels and large capital investments to shift to cleaner alternatives, though that could be a stretch. Then again, those bp commercials always talk about how they are investing in alternatives, and how they care about the planet very much, while busy counting billions in profits from the non-alternative pipelines. Maybe this will simply force fossil fueled industries to put their money where the mouth is, like every other business has to.

Thak July 1 2009 3:17 PM EDT

I always thought he just ment income tax when ever he made that statement. Not all taxes in general.

just my 2.

QBRanger July 1 2009 3:18 PM EDT

Please do not tell me you believe in the hoax of global warming.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:19 PM EDT

Why would a fossil fuel industry need to pay for the effects on the environment, Cube? They're just providing the material that we use.

Cube July 1 2009 3:20 PM EDT

I guess I mean it gives some economic incentive for being cleaner, and that's far better than nothing. It applies a cost to CO2.

There's a reason I used the word long twice.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 3:20 PM EDT

Who are you talking to, Ranger?

The original post is still incorrect.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:23 PM EDT

Putting an extra cost on using fossil fuels would better serve that purpose. There's no need to punish the industry for being itself.

inb4 we're trying to remove the industry in favor of cleaner burning fuels, that's more along the lines of "keeping with the times" rather than punishment. -in case anyone was going there-

Cube July 1 2009 3:27 PM EDT

They have to pay environmental effects because different people use different amounts of energy. If we don't want environmental effects, then there has to be a cost to producing them.

OB: If I used water from a public river, sold it in bottles, but that caused people downstream to not have any water, then I should have to pay some cost.

As for Global Warming Ranger, I refuse to draw any absolute conclusions _especially_ from cherry-picked reports. However, yes I do trust the majority of scientists rather than the minority.

Cube July 1 2009 3:29 PM EDT

'Putting an extra cost on using fossil fuels would better serve that purpose. There's no need to punish the industry for being itself.'

Except that power plants can make improvements that reduce emissions, but still use the same fuel.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:33 PM EDT

I'm saying to put that cost into the hands of consumers and make it their decision, rather than essentially punishing the coal industry for producing coal.

I personally don't feel there is enough evidence to support or disprove Global Warming, as we are drawing from a tiny little sample of the Earth's timeline.

Timeline


---------------------------------------------------------------------[sample]

It got hotter during the sample! Therefore the weather is getting hotter due to interference from human beings.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:34 PM EDT

Requiring such improvements be made, then, is still a better alternative than making the coal industry foot the environmental effects charge. It's all about the angle you approach it from!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 1 2009 3:35 PM EDT

is global warming the only reason to seek out renewable cleaner energy?

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:36 PM EDT

certainly not ;)

just look at China's patriotic country cloud!

QBRanger July 1 2009 3:37 PM EDT

Fine Sut,

If it will get you to stop posting in other threads this nonsense, your right.

You're smart, I am dumb.

You're handsome, I am ugly.

You're athletically inclined, I am not.

You're great, I am not.

The first post is 100% incorrect. Not a word of truth to it. This is not a tax but rather a something else not to be labelled as a tax that will cost the public more money.

His statement of no taxes going up for those making only 250k a year only applies to his definition of income taxes.

You are 100% correct sir, you win, I lose.

My logic is completely wrong, yours is infallible.

My value system is skewed and I have no meaning.

Cube July 1 2009 3:38 PM EDT

'I'm saying to put that cost into the hands of consumers and make it their decision, rather than essentially punishing the coal industry for producing coal.'

I don't understand what you're suggesting.

I said I didn't draw any definite conclusions as I'm not a global climate expert and am not arrogant enough to assume that I know everything. However, I will trust the majority of scientists. I have heard as much as I can of both arguments. I have heard the timeline argument of course, and I do consider it valid personally, but I'm not a climate expert.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:39 PM EDT

and your mother smelt of elderberries.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:40 PM EDT

^ the above post directed to Ranger, because he left out a detail. Your mother smells just fine, Cube. <3

Cube July 1 2009 3:41 PM EDT

Aww thanks

QBRanger July 1 2009 3:41 PM EDT

"is global warming the only reason to seek out renewable cleaner energy?"

Of course not.

However, at this time of global recession, we need to find ways to stop getting deeper in debt.

There is a time and place for changing to renewable energy. Right now, however, is a poor time.

Bush and those before him certainly dropped the ball on this. Including Clinton and Reagan.

But now, instead of a carbon tax, that money could be used in more productive manners.

QBRanger July 1 2009 3:42 PM EDT

My mother smelled more of cigarettes and booze.

Elderberries would have been an improvement :)

Cube July 1 2009 3:43 PM EDT

Now that's an argument I can respect.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:44 PM EDT

I think ball-dropping is the most serious issue facing America today.

When I run for President, my slogan will be "Elect OB, and no more balls will drop!"

Cube July 1 2009 3:44 PM EDT

The post above that, not the one about what your mother smells like

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 1 2009 3:44 PM EDT

there will always be excuses, for individuals, countries or planets, to put off doing the right thing.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 1 2009 3:45 PM EDT

"When I run for President, my slogan will be "Elect OB, and no more balls will drop!" "

what about the babies ob? especially the male ones!

QBOddBird July 1 2009 3:50 PM EDT

And it is hard questions like those that I will avoid.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 3:51 PM EDT

"GL, let me know when you figure out what sort of court or committee gets to decide on whether or not a politician has actually "lied"."

I suppose there would have to be one appointed specifically to do such a thing. And there would be regulations etc surrounding it and what it does.

"By your reckoning, we should be canning Obama already, then, because Artemis has proclaimed Obama a "liar"."

Only if Artemis is the regulatory body assigned to determin such.

"Or are you saying Artemis doesn't get to decide? Who, then?"

Whoever is offically appoint this new role to make sure Potential Electorial candidates don't bamboozle the voting public with buzz words or PR sparkle they have no intention of ever fulfiling.

As once you get into office, who cares what you originally siad or promised to get there. You can't be touched for it.

Cube July 1 2009 3:51 PM EDT

"Elect OB, and no more balls will drop!"

At least that has more meaning than 'Change!'

QBRanger July 1 2009 3:51 PM EDT

Yes Dude,

There always are.

People typically never change behavior patterns till a crisis occurs.

Is global warming occurring or is it a big hoax designed to make Al Gore rich?

Nobody knows.

However, right now, in this global recession, it is not the time to spend money or force companies to spend money on changing the very nature of how they do business.

I know it is a tough thing to accept, but we are over 1T in debt from the first "stimulus" package with talks of a 2nd one soon.

We do not need more debt from trying to change the very manner we get our power. At least not as drastic a change as this HR 2454.

Let us try to get our affairs in order, concentrate on other things such as universal health care, getting our country out of a recession and making sure people have shelter and food, before going down this road.

I am for clean energy and try to do my part. But now is not the time for a large scale change.

Cube July 1 2009 3:53 PM EDT

'As once you get into office, who cares what you originally siad or promised to get there. You can't be touched for it.'

In California, we have recall elections. That was definitely and amusing time for politics.

QBRanger July 1 2009 3:55 PM EDT

I do not believe there is a recall election available in the case of president.

He has to resign or be impeached. Or otherwise be incapacitated.

blackshadowshade July 1 2009 3:56 PM EDT

Ranger, unfortunately, now is definitely the right time for change with respect to clean energy. Every year that goes past without action makes the future all the worse.

The most unfortunate thing is that so many people who are not climate scientists hold the same view that you do.

QBRanger July 1 2009 3:58 PM EDT

There are quite a few climate professionals that believe global warming is a myth.

More and more are coming out given the stigmata one is given if one refutes it.

Cube July 1 2009 3:59 PM EDT

No, hardly suggesting adapting the recall, that thing is horribly put together.

But politics isn't completely without public reaction by any means. How Obama does will determine 4 years or 8. We also saw how Bush's reputation affected the outcome for plenty of elections in the Senate, House, and probably even president.

Demigod July 1 2009 3:59 PM EDT

Stigmata? Um... stigma?

blackshadowshade July 1 2009 4:00 PM EDT

Ranger, try http://www.realclimate.org/ for many comprehensive in-depth refutations of global warming critics.

QBRanger July 1 2009 4:01 PM EDT

The stigmata of being labelled a quack.

It used to be if you stated or implied global warming was not real, you got your butt handed to you by certain groups.

Now, people are coming out with studies stating perhaps GW is not real. Without the stigmata of being labelled an idiot or quack.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 1 2009 4:01 PM EDT

"Is global warming occurring or is it a big hoax designed to make Al Gore rich?"

if that is the only factor for you in changing our energy reliance, then no wonder you think it can wait.

also, you are so up in arms over the debt for the stimulus package, how do you feel about the debt from the war on terror / drugs?

QBOddBird July 1 2009 4:03 PM EDT

I think we can all agree that the debt from the war on terror / drugs leaves us owing more money than when we started. *grin*

Demigod July 1 2009 4:04 PM EDT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata

Stigma! :D

Cube July 1 2009 4:05 PM EDT

I think Godwolf isn't real.

I'm trying to find numbers on the percentage of climatolgists right now, so far very conflicting numbers. It's hard to find impartial results.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 4:07 PM EDT

I don't know, Demigod, I rather like the idea of judging an expert's knowledge or Truth by checking their hands for blood.

Perhaps we can adapt that to GL's Presidential monitoring idea as well. *smile*

QBRanger July 1 2009 4:10 PM EDT

Again dude,

It is not the only factor. We do need to get away from reliance on resources from the Middle East. Where things are very much in turmoil.

But now is not the time to enact such sweeping laws. Baby steps are needed. Not one gigantic leap.

The war on drugs is a farce. It is doing nothing to curb drug use or the supply. I am an advocate of legalizing drugs and taxing them. Of course the restrictions of no drugs and driving, etc.. is needed.

The war on terror, that is another story. At the time I believed the war in Iraq was needed. Now, not so sure, but we created a mess we have to fix. Otherwise that area becomes quite unstable again. The Afgan war sort of the same but more righteous.

Without a safe world, the economy is nothing. And right now there are countries that have Atomic weapons or are very close to having them that need to be dealt with.

I personally believe the War on Terror will become far worse before it gets better. N. Korea and Iran are 2 potential boiling points that may need quick action.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 4:10 PM EDT

LOL! Demigod, a link from that page to the first stigmatist? was to Christina von Stommeln, about whom it is said:

"Christina met Peter of Dacia, a Dominican, who became a lifelong friend and oftentimes tickled her tooter."

I lafffffffed.

QBRanger July 1 2009 4:11 PM EDT

Yes, stigma.

Again, I am stupid and Sut is smart.

He is great, I suck.

He is all that, I am nothing.

Some things are constant, this is one of them.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 4:12 PM EDT

er, Demigod was the one who pointed that out, Sut never even mentioned it.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] July 1 2009 4:15 PM EDT

we have had 30 years since the 1979 oil crisis for those baby steps to begin. as far as oil crises go, we are now a middle-aged adult who cannot walk and instead scoots around in crude oil scooters.

in my humble opinion we have had plenty of time and now need to act. what exactly are we waiting for?

blackshadowshade July 1 2009 4:15 PM EDT

Cube,

It's not from climate scientists, but these poll results on the Obama & McCain policies to the environment are interesting:

http://sciencedebate2008.com/vote/?p=13

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 4:16 PM EDT

Pfft.

If you wanted a garden shed built, and tender the job to a couple of contractors, one of which you choose to employ based on a quote for the work to be done (includng cost, and what they would actually do) and then he turns up and instead paves your garden.

Would you not stop the work, ask for a refund and/or compensation, and get someone else to do the job?

And possibly also report him to the watchdog agency that governs his profession?

A nations leader is providing a service to the country in question. And should neither be above monitoring, or responsibilty. And shouldn't be given a term of office 'in' just for throwing out what the public wants to hear.

Let political parties 'tender' for terms in office, with the public voting on which they want. But make the parties accountable for what the offer.

We do that for every other service provider.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 4:24 PM EDT

A bit off topic, but Ranger's old thread on the Antarctic ice is closed, and we're moving in the direction of global warming anyway. So here:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/antarctic-ice-is-growing.php

Sorry for the mini-hijack.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 4:26 PM EDT

"The war on drugs is a farce. It is doing nothing to curb drug use or the supply. I am an advocate of legalizing drugs and taxing them. Of course the restrictions of no drugs and driving, etc.. is needed."

And on this, we are in 100% agreement.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 4:28 PM EDT

Agreed on that as well. Should have included that with prostitution above. ;)

QBRanger July 1 2009 4:29 PM EDT

And here are a few articles on the hoax of global warming:

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

Personally I do not know what is really occurring.

Cleaner energy=good.

Reliance on oil and the Middle East=bad

But is global warming real or such an urgent thing that we need to mortgage even more of our future to prevent? I do not know.

But I know there are 2 sides to this discussion.

QBRanger July 1 2009 4:30 PM EDT

GL,

Certain areas of Nevada, not Las Vegas, have legalized prostitution.

HBO even made a mini series on it. Called the Bunny Ranch or something like that.

The women did their job, got paid without any problems.

I agree, it should be legalized.

And yet, given I think drugs and prostitution should be legal, how can I be a conservative?

Cube July 1 2009 4:31 PM EDT

blackshadowshade
What I find most interesting about that poll is that people voted McCain far lower simply because of perception. They both provide similar ideas for cap and trade plans, with only slightly different goals. Both very ambitious goals heh.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Here's the best I found, they polled 3000ish Earth scientists. Still not completely trust worthy as someone points out in the comments, 97% of climatolgists agreeing with global warming being caused by humans isn't surprising as climatolgists wouldn't have a job otherwise. Someone in the comments compared it to asking priests if they believed in God. Still there seems to be a decent consensus that global warming is caused by humans among those polled. Not completely overwhelming, but 80%. It's kinda funny to read too because you have the different groups of scientists bad mouthing each other's professions.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 4:34 PM EDT

GL, you are comparing a person (single party) hiring a contractor (single-focused service provider performing a relatively static task) to a country (many people) monitoring a President (multi-faceted job with ever-changing scope and demands). You see there's a difference there, right? That no matter how much I agree with you about accountability, etc., that doesn't mean there is a feasible way to implement what you are suggesting.

How can the mind of a nation (you, in your garden example) agree on whether or not to sack the President (the contractor, in your garden example)? Unless you can think of practical means to get done what you want done, the sentiment you are proffering is nothing more than euphemistic idealism. I should know, I dabble in that all the time. *smile* Doesn't make it doable, though.

Cube July 1 2009 4:36 PM EDT

Well, sutekh California _did_ replace it's Governor. And many countries are smaller than California (at least used to be the 5th largest economy).

blackshadowshade July 1 2009 4:36 PM EDT

Naturally enough, Ranger, RealClimate addresses the EPA report directly in its last blog entry. Try reading the blog entry, which gives you all the tools you need to evaluate the EPA report itself.

Why am I not willing to let this issue lie, like I would most others? Because it's important, that's why. It's important enough and urgent enough that our decisions now (yes, from each of us!), will affect the state of the environment during our lifetimes.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 4:37 PM EDT

Sure, Cube. But ours isn't one of them, and you said yourself the California system is screwy.

Lord Bob July 1 2009 4:38 PM EDT

Yes, prostitution should likewise be legalized, then taxed and heavily regulated.

"HBO even made a mini series on it. Called the Bunny Ranch or something like that."

That place is terrible though.

"And yet, given I think drugs and prostitution should be legal, how can I be a conservative?"

Because for the most part, you're more of a Libertarian style conservative than another "moral" majority, bible throwing, social authoritarian style "conservative." You're the better type.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 4:39 PM EDT

:P

I leave the 'hows' up to someone else. ;) I'm only concerned in how it should be, not how to make it actual. ;)

(I recognise the difference, and my analogy wasn't the greatest, but I'm sick of Political Parties getting into office on the backs of ludicrous claims they never intend to honour, just because it bedazzles enough of the populace into voting for them.
they *really* need to be held acountable for the rubbish - or even lies - they spread purely to get elected. It's a farce...)

Cube July 1 2009 4:48 PM EDT

Ranger, you might want to check the websites you look at first...

What really is the

World Natural Health Organization???

Never trust a website with horrible formatting!!

QBRanger July 1 2009 4:51 PM EDT

I like to think of myself as liberal with respect to social issues while being conservative about financial ones.

And back to part of the first post, it will be very interesting to see what gets passed with this filibuster proof senate.

I hope it is not an open season for all liberal agenda to get passed.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 4:51 PM EDT

GL, aren't you more upset that people buy it? I mean, you obviously don't, right? How about we just try to give people better tools for making better decisions?

And then let's reform voting while we are at it, so that votes have more power and people don't feel as if they are throwing their vote away if the vote off the main parties (instant-run-off voting, weighted voting, etc -- there are a LOT of ideas out there...)

QBRanger July 1 2009 4:59 PM EDT

"And then let's reform voting while we are at it, so that votes have more power and people don't feel as if they are throwing their vote away if the vote off the main parties (instant-run-off voting, weighted voting, etc -- there are a LOT of ideas out there...) "

How about a 1 vote per dollar in taxes you pay type system.

Why should someone who contributes nothing to the system get a say?

Or only those who serve in the military get to vote, worked in the book Starship Troopers.

Or plenty of other ways to stop idiots who know nothing about the true views of the candidates from voting. Who vote because someone speaks well or looks good on camera.

However, this is American and even idiots get their right to choose their leader.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 5:05 PM EDT

That's why I am trying to push for fewer idiots.

QBRanger July 1 2009 5:09 PM EDT

I can agree with you there.

Perhaps a small test about the candidates and their positions on key issues you have to pass before you can vote.

Or a simple IQ test.

However, this is America and everyone, including the very stupid, get the same protections as Marilyn vos Savant.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] July 1 2009 5:10 PM EDT

"GL, aren't you more upset that people buy it?"

Sadenned they buy it.

I'm more angry with the people who actually abuse the reasoning of the populace just for thier self promotion. They are being deliberate with thier actions.

That some (or most) fall for it is a sad thing. Nothing to get angry at those who have been duped.

As for the system itself, I think it needs a radical change, from the base up. Myself I hate the schoolyard bickering that is the Houses of Parliament. It's embarrising. Prime Ministers question time especially. All the questions have been asked, and replies already concocted before the session. The back and forth school yard tirade is nothing but pomp.

QBsutekh137 July 1 2009 5:17 PM EDT

I disagree with an IQ test for the actual voting, since I wouldn't know where to draw the line: 100? 110? 120? Can an IQ test be trusted? Also, it smacks an awful lot like early methods meant to keep black people from voting, such as literacy tests before black communities even had time to build schools or learn to read.

I'm afraid we probably have to live with the bell curve as far as intelligence distribution, which I am fine with. Raw intelligence doesn't always denote common sense, unique perspectives, or the ability to solve problems. I think someone with an IQ of 100 can be taught critical thinking skills enough to see through lies and propaganda as well as any Mensa candidate.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] July 1 2009 5:31 PM EDT


To go back to a very important point: If OB is elected Fearless Leader, time in America will stop.

1. Time is measured in years.
2. Each year is marked at midnight, New Year's Eve.
3. The year doesn't change 'til the ball drops.
4. OB promises no more ball dropping!

Think before you vote, people!

Cube July 1 2009 5:46 PM EDT

You guys distracted me for 30 min to find and take an IQ test online. I guess I failed =P

Mikel July 1 2009 7:52 PM EDT

Ok,
Here's the deal with me.
While this plan is "ok", I as a middle class working American can not afford any more squeezes on my wallet at this time.

The economy is already tight, and people are unemployed and you never know who's next. To top all of that off, people are still losing their homes, what is Obama going to tell those people that are doing their best to hang on right now?? Believe me, they will see right thru this and he won't be serving a second term.

Don't worry we aren't going to tax you directly, just all of your monthly expenses are going to increase. And that $8 a week increase in my pay check? He can keep it and shove it cause apparently he thinks that evens things out.

At the rate we are going, it is going to get much worse before it even has a chance to get better.

Cube July 1 2009 9:55 PM EDT

So Bast OB would end up being president forever? Sounds to me like he's thought this all the way through if he was clever enough to sneak that in, I'm on board.

QBOddBird July 1 2009 11:10 PM EDT

I'm pretty sure everyone will be O.K. with no more aging.

PearsonTritonRaveshaw July 2 2009 1:07 AM EDT

I'm pretty sure we should sit back and enjoy your picture OB1. =P
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002oXk">Liar.</a>