Democrats still want a carbon tax

Democrats are desperate for a job-killing, cost-increasing carbon tax — they just won't tell you

Even after anthropomorphic global warming has been proven to be a HOAX.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But as we head into Election Day, Democrats have been united in their calls for new tax hikes. Not only do they hope to take more from your hard-earned paychecks, Democrats have long looked at energy taxes as a way to fund their big-government agenda. Not only would this raise the cost of energy for families across this country, it would place an incredible burden on small businesses and kill jobs in the energy sector.

Democrats know the energy tax is a political loser and behind closed doors will acknowledge as much. In 2015, a carbon tax memo prepared for then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton concluded that a carbon tax would be devastating to low-income households. “As with the increase in energy costs, the increase in the cost of non-energy goods and services would disproportionately impact low income households,” the memo states.

“The cost of other household goods and services would increase as well as companies pass forward the higher energy costs paid to produce those goods and services on to consumers.”

They (Dems) never tell you the truth about their intentions

We are already leading the world by 2x in reducing emissions,

A $40 per ton carbon tax would immediately increase the price of gasoline by 38 cents per gallon. As the American Enterprise Institute recently pointed out, even a smaller $25 per ton carbon tax, at a low-ball estimate, would cost the average household hundreds of dollars per year, undoing a quarter of the average household tax cut in the GOP’s historic Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Such an oppressive tax would come at a time when the United States is not only leading the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but doing so at nearly twice the rate as the next closest country.

I ask you, have any of you heard anything about this?

Ask yourself, why?

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

edit on 5-11-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)

I would be interested to see your source proving global warming is a hoax.

I understand many people who believe global warming is true also do not believe it is human influenced.

It's a big opening statement you use there, with no evidence you run the risk of making your entire thread look weak.

EDIT - I see you have linked to a Fox News video. I am unable to watch at the moment, please explain the science if you have the time.

a reply to: and14263

The ice age ended long before cars were invented

ETA I will edit the original post to add anthropomorphic.

a reply to: Aallanon

Even if you don't believe climate change is man induced, that doesn't mean that we can't speed it up.

Even if you don't believe we can't speed it up, that doesn't mean it doesn't degrade the air quality to burn fuel.

So we can all agree it hurts air quality, so I see no reason why trucking companies shouldn't help out in the localities they are burning such by paying a little extra at the pump.

That said, what degrades roads the fastest? Tractor Trailers.

I don't see whats so wrong with asking those who put more weight (literally) on our infrastructure (which is past due on repairs) to pay a little extra.

I'm not sure that's where the tax is going, but it should be.

What would you rather, everyone pay equal share to repair roads and help air quality? Or ask those that abuse those two the most to fork over a little extra?

a reply to: Aallanon

Global warming hasn't been proven right or wrong but you are correct on the carbon tax.
Its just a big tax scam.

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: and14263

The ice age ended long before cars were invented

ETA I will edit the original post to add anthropomorphic.

If you are unable to explain a claim then might be best not making the claim.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I would prefer the government not take anymore of my money under false pretenses.

a reply to: and14263

That is a word game.

Can you PROVE it's real? and that taking my money will stop it?

Democrats want taxes on your taxes. They better act fast, I think they will have additional problems after Tuesday.

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: and14263

That is a word game.

Can you PROVE it's real? and that taking my money will stop it?

No, no. I didn't ever suggest it was real.

What I said is that you have made a very bold sweeping statement which damages your valid thread argument. I asked for a source to your statement because I am eager to learn more.

I have read many articles both for and against and the only thing I can prove is that the further you look into experiments the harder and more complicated the information becomes - I am specifically thinking about the mass of gases and the relative heat input for warming... and how our results from experiemtns can be very misleading to a layman. I am a layman.


However, you have stated something and now requiring the reader to prove otherwise. Unfortunately sir, life does not work like that. The author is required to offer up proof, otherwise your words are meaningless. Which is a shame, because they could potentially be priceless (they kind of already are).

a reply to: and14263

If you have a differing opinion on AGW, that's fine. I believe it has been proven a hoax.

My opinion is not up for debate. ( My public school teacher taught me your opinion is never wrong).

What is up for debate is how taking my money will fix this even theoretically and why they (the Dems) are hiding it.

I think you know this and are purposefully sliding/derailing my thread.

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I would prefer the government not take anymore of my money under false pretenses.

Me too.

So we spent 6~ trillion in the Middle East post 9/11, most of which was spent on countries who had nothing to do with it.

We need 5~ trillion to fix our dilapidated infrastructure.

So, we can adjust where are taxes are going, or pay more.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Aallanon

Even if you don't believe climate change is man induced, that doesn't mean that we can't speed it up.

Even if you don't believe we can't speed it up, that doesn't mean it doesn't degrade the air quality to burn fuel.

So we can all agree it hurts air quality, so I see no reason why trucking companies shouldn't help out in the localities they are burning such by paying a little extra at the pump.

That said, what degrades roads the fastest? Tractor Trailers.

I don't see whats so wrong with asking those who put more weight (literally) on our infrastructure (which is past due on repairs) to pay a little extra.

I'm not sure that's where the tax is going, but it should be.

What would you rather, everyone pay equal share to repair roads and help air quality? Or ask those that abuse those two the most to fork over a little extra?

So it's better to squeeze a bit more money from the Truckers, so the cost of goods will increase and this somehow equates to less pollution? I'm not sure I follow your logic here.

Off to work so the government can pay for more useless,pointless programs

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: and14263

If you have a differing opinion on AGW, that's fine. I believe it has been proven a hoax.

My opinion is not up for debate. ( My public school teacher taught me your opinion is never wrong).

What is up for debate is how taking my money will fix this even theoretically and why they (the Dems) are hiding it.

I think you know this and are purposefully sliding/derailing my thread.

Your source is an op-ed, so I wouldn't necessarily say you have anything to worry about.

At this point, if we are going off of everything in the thread, this may all be speculation anyways.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Everything is an OP ED

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Aallanon

Even if you don't believe climate change is man induced, that doesn't mean that we can't speed it up.

Even if you don't believe we can't speed it up, that doesn't mean it doesn't degrade the air quality to burn fuel.

So we can all agree it hurts air quality, so I see no reason why trucking companies shouldn't help out in the localities they are burning such by paying a little extra at the pump.

That said, what degrades roads the fastest? Tractor Trailers.

I don't see whats so wrong with asking those who put more weight (literally) on our infrastructure (which is past due on repairs) to pay a little extra.

I'm not sure that's where the tax is going, but it should be.

What would you rather, everyone pay equal share to repair roads and help air quality? Or ask those that abuse those two the most to fork over a little extra?

So it's better to squeeze a bit more money from the Truckers, so the cost of goods will increase and this somehow equates to less pollution? I'm not sure I follow your logic here.

Not truckers, the trucking company.

And yes, it would certainly have ramifications.

I was merely offering an alternative, but obviously that's not the only one.

We could allocate the money from other spending, certainly.

That would be what I propose, but I doubt that will happen, so that is why I stated what I did above.

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Everything is an OP ED

No, that's not true.

Some news stories source a bill that is being pushed through congress. That isn't an opinion, that would be fact.

This is an op ed done by a representative sourcing two states voting on carbon taxes as indication for a federal, while he might be right, we haven't seen the bill yet.

I was just offering the above as food for thought.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You dont honestly believe the trucking companies are just going to absorb the extra cost without passing on the bill do you?

a reply to: Aallanon

Certainly not derailing your thread which I have said more than once is valid, that's there in text to prove.

I just wanted you to show me some knowledge/science in the interest of education. I understand now that you are unable to do this and your prerogative is not to educate and inform.

Maybe we can discuss your opinion in another thread one day, because I feel we believe the premises but one of us requires facts, the other uses a different model. A bit like right vs left! (I am no leftist btw).