An inconvenient Absence

[Kosar_For_President]

And, Heck, you are a loser who keeps bailing out of the forum and keeps coming back when

 

you think that we forgot that you seem to be the one who reads articles, then pens in your opinions like they were yours.

 

In my reading, I have more than 3 times read posts by "experts", in nearly the exact same words as you.

 

Coincidence? Or not?

 

BTW, you never answered my question - did you, Shep, Mzbeetlejuice, and Al know each other, or

some subgroup of the above, on some other forum @@ before you came here?

 

I ask, because, seems to me, that none of the above ever said how they are Browns fans, love the Browns, etc...........

 

and you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles.

 

After all the posts to the contrary of mmgw, they start all over AGAIN at the beginning, arguing the same premise.

 

"Deja vu all over again"

 

Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?

 

Cal I think it's the other way around. They did not know each other but gravitated to the EXACT same views because that is what their minds were molded to think. I've change my views from time to time because I don't let ego get into the way of what is right or wrong. When you side with either political gang, it's purely being brainwashed.

[heckofajobbrownie]

...Wha?? Who molded us?

 

You guys are too funny over here in your little sheltered colony, listening to each other say the same thing every day, then accusing everyone else of being automatons who were molded to think a certain way. It's pretty funny.

 

 

[Kosar_For_President]

...Wha?? Who molded us?

 

You guys are too funny over here in your little sheltered colony, listening to each other say the same thing every day, then accusing everyone else of being automatons who were molded to think a certain way. It's pretty funny.

 

No Heck that is MY view not anyone elses, lol.

[Mr. T]

No, we didn't know each other. Sorry if this ruins some sort of conspiracy you've created in your head.

 

 

Earth to Hack, I mean Heck. We are the conspirators. As you say its is our safe little colony.

 

Continue on our wayward son.

 

 

 

[Alo]

Ah, what a funny place this is...

[Westside Steve]

 

 

As for what comes next, I don't know what the point of your question is. Cap and trade is hanging in the balance, especially after a Brown win today, which he seems to be headed towards. And so you're faced with the prospect of EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So maybe you get some sort of watered down bill instead, which is all you can get out of Congress today. So there's a real prospect that greenhouse gas emissions will continue pretty much unabated, which is pretty bad news for the planet.

 

Besides, you're still stuck in your rut, which is to claim that there's no difference between emissions under a cap and trade system and emissions without one. So there's really no point in arguing with you either, which is why I don't, and periodically check in here to see what crazy people think is true this month.

 

Actually my point is that the effect on emissions by a proposed carbon tax on US industry will be miniscule.

And I don't think you've had the moxie to state that it will be substantial.

So we spin our wheels.

But I'd bet it's in trouble even if Brown loses.

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Nobody is proposing a carbon tax, Steve.

[calfoxwc]

Nobody is proposing a carbon tax, Steve. Heck

*******************************************

 

So, even after you ran away and hid for a while, you are STILL all WET IN EGYPT?

 

Egads, you never cease to get worse and worse...

 

Perhaps you never heard of Rep John D. Dingell?

 

************************************************

 

http://www.house.gov/dingell/carbonTaxSummary.shtml

 

Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation Representative John D. Dingell

The earth is getting warmer and human activities are a large part of the cause. We need to act in order to prevent a serious problem. The world’s best scientists agree we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050 in order to limit the effects of global warming and this legislation will put us on track to do just that.

 

This is a massive undertaking, and it will not be easy to achieve, but we simply must accomplish this goal; our future and our children’s futures depend on it.

 

In order to get to this end we need to have a multi-pronged approach. In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, which would mandate a cap on carbon emissions, a fee on carbon is the most effective way to curb emissions and make alternatives economically viable.

 

Below you will find a summary of the carbon tax legislation I am working on. I invite you to comment on the proposal. Once I have received your comments, I will look at ways we can address the ideas and concerns brought to my attention by the American people.

 

We must remember we all have a common goal and are in this fight together. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

The legislation I am proposing would impose the following:

 

A tax on carbon content:

 

•$50 / ton of carbon (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)

◦Coal, including lignite and peat

◦Petroleum and any petroleum product

◦Natural gas

A tax on gasoline:

 

•.50/ gallon of gas, jet fuel, kerosene (petroleum based) etc…(added to current gas tax) (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)

◦Exemption for diesel – The fuel economy benefits of diesel surpass even its emissions benefits; it provides about a thirty percent increase in fuel economy and a twenty percent emissions reduction

◦Biofuels that do not contain petroleum are exempt. Biofuels blended with petroleum are only taxed on the petroleum portion of the fuel.

**The .50 gas tax is in addition to what is derived from the per ton carbon tax in the previous bullet.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kosar_For_President]

Heck = Owned

[heckofajobbrownie]

What I'm saying is that we're not debating a carbon tax and never have been. We're debating a cap and trade proposal. That's the only game in town. The bill that passed the House and is currently before the Senate is not a carbon tax. It's a cap and trade bill.

 

Dingell is on his own, doing the bidding for Detroit. There is no real discussion of a carbon tax in Congress. And I don't think Steve knows the difference between the two proposals, because he seems to think that they're the same thing when they're not.

 

But you can do a victory dance if it makes you feel good, as if Steve was really talking about the idea Dingell has, and not the bills that are before Congress. I won't stop you.

[Kosar_For_President]

They are both f*cked Heck.

 

Under Obama's 2010 budget plan, the government would auction off all emission credits, generating as much as $650 billion in government revenue between 2012 and 2020.

 

Auction off? Then they can sell off surplus allowances? Yea that won't cause problems. Bribery and all that other shit.

 

In the end, consumers are going to be paying more for all products and lose jobs. Yea it's not the carbon tax, but in the end, they are basically going to jack prices up and pretend they are "giving" back that tax to the middle income people.

 

"The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them)."

 

"But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade -- Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey -- come from California or the Northeast."

 

"Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class. What industry does Heck and Sev work in? JK.

 

Artificially injecting the economy just like the housing boom. It's a bad idea and causes way to much red tape to already over bearing, bloated government.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, of course they should auction them off. The alternative is to give them away, which results in a huge windfall for the people doing the polluting at the expense of taxpayer, who reap the benefit of an auction through tax refunds. I know you don't know any of this because you're a cut and paste guy, and you just went out and found a new cut and paste about this, but it's funny because the article you did find was supposedly in support of the little guy, the working man, while you argue for a policy that is worse for working class Americans. You also seem to be worried about political interference in the process while arguing for a policy that would clearly be subject to even more political interference.

 

As for the wealth redistribution crap, save it for Glenn Beck. The goal isn't some socialist fantasy world. That's just what nutcases tell themselves so they can go on believing everyone is a commie but them. But hey, that's what happens every time a Democrat gets into office, so it's not like the rest of us are surprised.

 

The goal is to minimize the effects of global warming, full stop. If that sometimes involves taxing money from polluters like the US and China and funding efforts in places where climate change will be the most drastic, so what? It's as simple as taxing the people who cause the problem and helping those who will live with it. It's not that complicated or foreign a concept. If you want you can go see it working in court rooms all across the country, and every day.

 

`But what's the point in arguing remedies for a problem you deny exists in the first place? It's not like you're honestly debating the merits of one plan versus the other, or proposing an alternative. Because that would be interesting.

 

Why don't you tell me how cold it is somewhere in America right now? Or you can say global warming is caused by solar flares because a Polish scientist says so. And then Sev will tell you why it isn't. Then you can say that global warming is caused by water vapor, according to a scientist in New Zealand. And then Sev will tell you why it isn't. And then...

 

[Mr. T]

There are many famous names who admired and supported the green movement way before Al Gore showed up. Does Hitler or Stalin ring a bell?

 

 

The Free Market and Its Enemies

 

Socialists and Communists alike march to support the global warming agenda.

[calfoxwc]

Sorry, Heck, but you are riding the goofy and corrupt Obamao leftist goofy train.

 

I'd jump at the nearest station to the ground and run.

 

Leftists' profs' anti-everything dogma won't cut it in THIS country.

[Westside Steve]

What I'm saying is that we're not debating a carbon tax and never have been. We're debating a cap and trade proposal. That's the only game in town. The bill that passed the House and is currently before the Senate is not a carbon tax. It's a cap and trade bill.

 

Dingell is on his own, doing the bidding for Detroit. There is no real discussion of a carbon tax in Congress. And I don't think Steve knows the difference between the two proposals, because he seems to think that they're the same thing when they're not.

 

But you can do a victory dance if it makes you feel good, as if Steve was really talking about the idea Dingell has, and not the bills that are before Congress. I won't stop you.

 

I did indeed call cap and trade a tax and rightly so.

One reason discussions become so dreary is that you insist on word games.

 

Here's just one hit

http://www.gop.gov/wtas/09/06/25/wsj-the-cap-and-tax

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, Steve. No. There's a difference between a carbon tax and cap and trade. They're two different proposals. Even after all this time you don't know the difference, which is telling. Not surprising, but telling.

[calfoxwc]

Yes, they are different, but they are used toward the same purpose -

 

to steal money from the private sector, to empower the socialist leaning government of Obamao.

 

In that, their use is no difference, their existence and future? application would be used as the same thing, toward the same goals.

 

"Nobody is proposing a carbon tax, Steve."

 

Heck translation: Well, what I really mean, is, eh... that nobody is standing on one foot, hopping around in circles

 

with a praying mantis in their pocket, while they propose a carbon tax"...

 

oh yeah, OWNED.

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is a funny place. Like day care.

[Westside Steve]

No, Steve. No. There's a difference between a carbon tax and cap and trade. They're two different proposals. Even after all this time you don't know the difference, which is telling. Not surprising, but telling.

 

They are both taxes on carbon output no matter what euphemism you like.

You're wrong.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, not that there's any real point to this, but if you knew the difference between the two proposals and how they work you wouldn't be worried about the ability to cut emissions. In short, in one plan emissions are capped, and in the other they're not. I bet you can guess which one has the cap.

 

That's why it's sort of silly to say this, after all the time we spent discussing this:

 

"Actually my point is that the effect on emissions by a proposed carbon tax on US industry will be miniscule.

And I don't think you've had the moxie to state that it will be substantial."

 

Honestly, haven't you picked up any facts along the way?

 

First of all, I don't know what this has to do with my "moxie". But yes, emissions cuts under a cap and trade regime will be substantial. The bill that passed the House is watered down some, but still achieves major reductions, especially in the out years. Does this mean I have moxie now? This really isn't about me, or your personal animus towards me. Seriously.

 

Second of all, as we mentioned before, we're not talking about a "proposed carbon tax on US industry". We're talking about a cap and trade program. Yes, it attaches a price to carbon. What it also does is cap carbon emissions. And the only way its effects will be "miniscule" under that system is to make the cap miniscule. But nobody is proposing that either.

 

All you're doing is making sure you don't have to think about this for more than a couple minutes, or write about it for more than a paragraph. And it shows.

[Kosar_For_President]

This is a funny place. Like day care.

 

And your the one throwing childish insults. Nice.

[heckofajobbrownie]

They are both taxes on carbon output no matter what euphemism you like.

You're wrong.

WSS

 

Steve! There are two proposals! One is called "a carbon tax" and the other is called "cap and trade". When you say "carbon tax" it means you're referring to the former and not the latter. But the discussion we're having, have been having for years, and the discussion Congress is having, is about the latter.

 

If you want to talk about how pricing carbon is similar to taxing it, fine. It is similar to taxing it. That's not the point. The point is that saying that all the proposal is is a tax on carbon is dead wrong. That's not what the proposal is. That proposal isn't even in play.

 

And it's because you can't tell the difference that you're able to say things like "emissions will be miniscule". Because you're forgetting the most important distinction between the two policies, which is a cap on emissions.

 

So if your concern is that emissions won't be affected enough by a tax you can relax because the real mechanism that limits emissions is the cap part, not the trading part.

 

Get it?

[heckofajobbrownie]

And your the one throwing childish insults. Nice.

 

Kosar, if you've got another way to describe Cal's or T's moronic/paranoid/childish posts, I'm all ears.

 

And I do believe you were the one who just posted about me being "OWNED" by Cal. Maybe next time when we're talking about nuclear disarmament proposals (God forbid) and Steve says it'd be foolish to eliminate all nuclear weapons, and I point out that the nobody is proposing that we eliminate all nuclear weapons, just reduce them, and Cal posts a link that says Dennis Kucinich wants to eliminate them all, maybe you can say I was OWNED again. It will be another huge victory for you, and Cal, and you can all feel better about cutting and pasting Newsmax opinion pieces and adding your two sentences of bravado at the end.

[Westside Steve]

Steve! There are two proposals! One is called "a carbon tax" and the other is called "cap and trade". When you say "carbon tax" it means you're referring to the former and not the latter. But the discussion we're having, have been having for years, and the discussion Congress is having, is about the latter.

 

If you want to talk about how pricing carbon is similar to taxing it, fine. It is similar to taxing it. That's not the point. The point is that saying that all the proposal is is a tax on carbon is dead wrong. That's not what the proposal is. That proposal isn't even in play.

 

And it's because you can't tell the difference that you're able to say things like "emissions will be miniscule". Because you're forgetting the most important distinction between the two policies, which is a cap on emissions.

 

So if your concern is that emissions won't be affected enough by a tax you can relax because the real mechanism that limits emissions is the cap part, not the trading part.

 

Get it?

 

Now you're just wasting our time Heck.

There is abnsolutely nothing wrong with referring to cap and trade as a carbon tax.

It is.

BTW it's the change in emissions will be miniscule. And the effect on the climate.

And I'm not all that concerned.

 

But maybe you really do fear dire consequences for the planet.

And you may be right.

If you are, things aren't looking good.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, there is something wrong with it. You're just being your usual stubborn self. It'd be the same thing as calling "nuclear disarmament" and "nuclear freeze" the same thing because they both involve eliminating nuclear weapons programs. But they're not the same thing. A carbon tax and cap and trade aren't the same thing simply because they both attach a price to carbon emissions.

 

You made a mistake. You said the proposal before Congress was a carbon tax. No, it isn't. Some people would like to see a carbon tax, but that's a total nonstarter.

 

Two very different things.

 

And again, the proposed changes in emissions wouldn't be miniscule. How is cutting emissions by 80 percent miniscule? Well, that's where the cap ends up - at 80% of emissions. So you're wrong on that too.

 

There are also lots of other things in the bill, like offsets, renewable electricity standards, infrastructure investments, working re-training programs, refunds for middle- and lower-income workers, and more.

 

It's not just a carbon tax. But whatever gets you in and out without having to think about it much. You can just be against it because of the reasons you make up in your head, even if they're factually inaccurate.

 

[Kosar_For_President]

the reasons you make up in your head

 

+1

[heckofajobbrownie]

Seriously, Steve. There's been a debate for over a decade about how best to address global warming - a "carbon tax" versus "cap and trade." That debate is largely over, even though it had a short resurgence after cap and trade ran into problems in the Senate.

 

But here you are insisting that they're both the same thing, and dammit I'm going to call them the same thing even though no one else does!

 

Why act like this? It wastes both our time. You could just say, "What I meant was that they both price/tax carbon emissions." And I'd say, "Yes, they do" and then point out that if your concern is that emissions aren't affected enough, you want a stronger cap on them, a stronger bill. But you don't, because that's not your concern. Your concern is that we're going to do anything to address this problem. The rest is your usual marginally informed nihilism.

 

Or I could point out that since one of your stated objections was that India and China won't go along with this and leave us holding the bag, cap and trade is a much better answer to that problem than a domestic carbon tax. (Because again they're two different things.)

 

And one last thing - I don't think that I'm right, and that this will soon be a problem for the planet. It's got nothing to do with whether I'm right, because I have no way to personally validate the science. I don't have the necessary education/training/etc. Neither do you.

 

What I won't do is throw out the thousands of studies, all the research, all the conclusions of people who are qualified to examine these issues simply because of my political views, or my feelings about Al Gore, or because I don't want to take the time to read up on what they've found, or because I don't value science in general.

 

[calfoxwc]

So, you just returned from getting your rear punted 50 yards before, now you think

 

you can just come back and start the insults all over again, Heck?

 

Get a clue, we've been doing fine discussing things around here, and now

 

the first few posts, you've started insults. That's what happened last time.

 

It's all you libs know. Isolate, attack, and destroy, in your own minds.

 

Trouble is, John is here, and sees that you came in and started this crap again.

 

I simply disproved beyond any shadow of doubt, that what you said was completely wrong.

 

Again.

 

But, before, you and a few others started all the antagonism, then you complained you couldn't have

 

"serious discussions".

 

Steve keeps trying to have serious discussions with you, and all you do is semantically cherry pick

 

If you just want to come in and stir up trouble, take a freakin hike again.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, you crack me up. From this very thread:

 

"Heck, you are a loser..."

 

"...you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles."

 

"Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?"

 

"So, even after you ran away and hid for a while, you are STILL all WET IN EGYPT?" (I still don't know what that means.)

 

"Sorry, Heck, but you are riding the goofy and corrupt Obamao leftist goofy train."

 

 

And then...

 

"...now you think you can just come back and start the insults all over again, Heck?

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Cal, you crack me up. From this very thread:

 

"Heck, you are a loser..."

 

"...you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles."

 

"Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?"

 

"So, even after you ran away and hid for a while, you are STILL all WET IN EGYPT?" (I still don't know what that means.)

 

"Sorry, Heck, but you are riding the goofy and corrupt Obamao leftist goofy train."

 

 

And then...

 

"...now you think you can just come back and start the insults all over again, Heck?

 

 

Heck, you, mz the pussy, Shep, Dananmal, Inspecta, you all wanted out of here. You are superior in intelligence (per your opinion). Why don't you just stay out of here. We don't miss you. Any of you. You are all boring. Extremely. Now get the F out.