Obama’s Global Warming Plan Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raises Taxes By 166%

more about recovery systems.....

Recovery of CO2 from Flue Gases

These Obama taxes must be strictly political.

Hurting the poor is almost always the result of liberal interventionist policies. However, for liberals the actual results of their policies are irrelevant. It is all about making themselves feel good and the appearance of "doing something."

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Ya that is what happens when we allow this idea that corps can socialize their losses, as in pass any tax on to the costumer but privatize the profits.

Ummm, if I make a thing and you make it more expensive for me to make it then how do you think I am paying to make more of it?

I am not the government to simply raise taxes, so instead I raise prices.

Btw, there is no "socializing" losses and "privatizing" profits. That has to be about the most twisted usage of rhetoric I've heard in a long time.

As you and other leftists here are fond of saying, there is no state ownership involved so their CAN'T be any socialism.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: amazing

Well what is going to happen?

I don't know, but our entire economy and social structure would come to a screeching stop if things got that bad.

The people at the top don't want change. With all of this and that and fear mongering about Sander's social programs, and ObamaCare and Carbon Taxes, they will never let it get so bad that we want to revolt against it. It might get uncomfortable, but not enough for us to revolt.

a reply to: ketsuko

Socialism is worker ownership not State.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Btw, there is no "socializing" losses and "privatizing" profits. That has to be about the most twisted usage of rhetoric I've heard in a long time.

Actually there is, but it has nothing to do with the idea in this thread that a company passing the taxes and regulatory fees on to the consumer is "socializing losses." That concept is pretty damn stupid. That said, the corporate bailouts and "too big to fail" was all about socializing losses while keeping profits privatized.

We need to deregulate across the board, let companies make whatever profit margins the national free market will allow them to make (while enacting MASSIVE import tariffs to ensure production occurs in the US and employs Americans) and completely eliminate this idiocy which is "too big to fail." If company XYZ can't make it, goodbye, been nice knowing you, move on to allow someone else in the door.

Otherwise, Obama is endorsing a plan that hoses the middle class and working poor? No!!!!! GTFO!!!

Even Steve Wonder could see that one coming from Obama from miles away, considering everything the man has endorsed has ultimately buggered the American people right in their wallets.

a reply to: ketsuko

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

And yes corps socialize the loses, anytime something causes their bottom line to suffer they pass that to the consumer as best they can, but hey if you guys want to ignore that then fine.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Hurting the poor is almost always the result of liberal interventionist policies. However, for liberals the actual results of their policies are irrelevant. It is all about making themselves feel good and the appearance of "doing something."

That, and don't forget they will be lining their own pockets too...

Burning rubber all the way to the bank deposit windows

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ketsuko

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

And yes corps socialize the loses, anytime something causes their bottom line to suffer they pass that to the consumer as best they can, but hey if you guys want to ignore that then fine.

Absent things like insurance mandates, competition-throttling regulations, and tax payer bailouts, what you're describing isn't socializing losses. The consumer has a choice, pay the higher price or take business elsewhere. In other words, what you call "socializing losses" could very well put a corporation out of business if their consumer base takes offense to the higher price points. It is why prices go down when deregulation occurs... competition is always better than the alternative.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

And the bailouts were pretty wrong too.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ketsuko

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

And yes corps socialize the loses, anytime something causes their bottom line to suffer they pass that to the consumer as best they can, but hey if you guys want to ignore that then fine.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You are the ones applying a term to a normal part of business that doesn't apply.

If I am doing business and the cost of doing business goes up, then I have to increase the price of goods or go out of business. It's a simply concept and socialism is nowhere involved. Of course, if my cost of doing business raises my price of goods beyond what people will pay ... then I will be put out of business anyhow.

You don't start seeing it until the state gets its claws into the normal supply and demand mechanism.

The shill scientists that created this hokum, must be laughing their A$$'s off, all the stupid people believing carbon dioxide is BAD. Plants breath carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Those that refuse to think critically, are doomed to be lead by mentally deranged , defective humans devoid of compassion and empathy.

Here's a good one ....

Rising carbon dioxide is making the Earth GREENER: Extra plant growth caused by greenhouse gases could cover the USA twice

Scientists used satellite data over the past 33 years to measure leaf cover
Planet has got greener as plants have flourished in rising carbon dioxide
Additional plant growth is equivalent to covering the US twice in greenery
Rising carbon dioxide is responsible for 70 per cent of the extra greening

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

OK, I know you have that fancy little cartoon chart, but its a little deeper than that. Counter-claims require proof as well, you are not completely absolved of BoP. That mind set is as fallacious as the original fallacy.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

You should study this .....

Carbon Dioxide Capture from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants

Even with so called clean coal, coal is by far the most unhealthy source of electricity. The cost of removing it comes to many times less than the cost of health care leaving it in place.

www.forbes.com...

well, the koch brothers plan is to buy congress to make sure we keep using oil until we are all under water

so which is worse ?

obama doesn`t care, in 10 months he will be retired in hawaii and the next president will have to deal with this %166 tax increase. The poor will make out ok if hillary is elected because she`ll just raise the amount of welfare each family gets,the raise will compensate for the loss of obamas tax increase.the rich have enough to not even notice an increase like that, as usual it will be the middle class that get slammed.

As an non-American all I can say is:


GO OBAMA!

Saving the planet? RIGHT ON!

And I don't believe that the numbers presented are true, too. Those are the usual wrongly interpreted, falsely aggregated numbers all biased players are presenting.


Therefore: News is stupid, the poor won't go poorer by these laws, the children of tomorrow will thank you for every dollar spent on climate protection, and Obama is not the devil.

I am sooo done with "Obama done this, Obama done that, Obama baaad!"
Are you governed by a single person?! Forgot about senat and congress? Noooooo, its always only the bad, bad Obama.. Sure...

Ancient sun-worshiping cultures once offered up their yearling livestock, and even children to the priest-kings of their civilizations for sacrifice to the sun gods. Those civilizations still vanished.

This is the modern equivalent.

This is progress? Nope, just re-branded ritual sacrifice, justified by blind faith in charlatans.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Read the links and tell me what there is to counter, my point is that there isn't anything... just words and some links to 2011 tax numbers that have nothing to do with anything the study claims it's studying. Look for yourself.