Obama wants 'price signals'

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Our Nation is in deep BS and none of the two candidates for president can do a darn thing about it unless they put their live at risk and clean the capital nation of the corrupted dirt that is plaguing the halls of Congress.


Agreed.

However, both McCain and Obama are flip-flopping, useless, politics as usual, corruption and lies, typical politicians. Neither one is going to clean up DC because both McCain and Obama are not clean themselves.

They both have more baggage than Boston airport.
McCain has the Keating 5 and his hand holding with Bush43.
Obama has all the corrupt Chicago mob poltiical machine running him.

Given their history and how drunk on power the POTUS gets - it's safe to say that Price Signals - in the hands of either one of these people - would NOT stop at 'carbon footprints'.




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Obama wants "price signals" because Obama is a communist instead of a capitalist. The more he can make us all equal and move more power to the federal government the happier he will be. God forbid someone in this country get rich while some lazy bum doesnt work and doesnt have anything.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
To make you change your buying habits and behaviors to fit THEIR agendas.


We all live on this planet together. WE SHARE it. If you shared an apartment with someone and they were using all the hot water or crapping in their room and saying, "Hey, it's my room. I can crap in it if I want", you might be grateful for a landlord to come in and say, "ENOUGH! No more crapping on the floor"!

No rainbows and unicorns here. This is going to be hard work. And it's going to get tougher before it gets easier.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I don't feel that this is another Obama ploy to rid the world of its freedoms. Its called Keynesian Economics or the Laws of Supply and Demand.

Case in Point:

Recent gasoline prices.
When gas prices hit an all time high this summer, people began changing their habits resulting in using less gasoline. They began using public transportation, car pooling, driving more efficient vehicles, etc.
The end result was as USE decreased, and SUPPLY remained constant, the price of gasoline decreased.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I personally am tired of being blackmailed by the rich and powerful. "If you don't let us do whatever we want, then we'll take our marbles and go home" is what I hear underneath a lot of this. If the coal companies can't build toxic dumps, they'll just quit and all those poor people that work for them will just have to starve. If the rich can't buy a $200,000.00 boat without giving a fair luxury tax, they'll just do without and all those people will lose their income. (They can afford the boat but not the tax? BS!) It's just another way of saying "I'm special" and stroking overgrown egos.

I can't afford one, but if I could, why should I mind an extra $50.00 tax on a $5,000 TV? If I had the money to waste on it in the first place, then I should have the money for the tax. Yet a lot of places charge tax on food, something the rich can only use so much of, and which isn't a luxury.

The trouble is, the rich are greedy. (Republican and Democrat alike.) They like being able to say "mine is bigger than yours." (Bank accounts people, bank accounts.
) And they want the poor, who can't afford a herd of tax lawyers, to pay the greater share. Yet, they attained that wealth, either now or in the past, by shrewdly using the working man for gain, as a beast of burden. These are the same people who cry crocodile tears at the thought of an animal being abused, but turn a blind eye to some poor sap getting black lung in their coal mines, or cancer from working in the shipyards with asbestos.

The blackmailing of the American people is a crime. If they want to take their money and go somewhere else, I say fine. But don't come back. Maybe then there'll be room further up the monetary ladder for more reasonable, and less greedy, citizens to find a toehold.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee

I don't feel that this is another Obama ploy to rid the world of its freedoms. Its called Keynesian Economics or the Laws of Supply and Demand.

Case in Point:

Recent gasoline prices.
When gas prices hit an all time high this summer, people began changing their habits resulting in using less gasoline. They began using public transportation, car pooling, driving more efficient vehicles, etc.
The end result was as USE decreased, and SUPPLY remained constant, the price of gasoline decreased.





Now I know the government does a ton of these sin tax type things, but I dont agree with it. They shoud have no role in what we choose to do with our money. If someone wants to smoke let them. Just let them pay for the health costs themselves or die when they get lung cancer. It called freedom of choice and living with the consequences of your choices.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
Recent gasoline prices.
When gas prices hit an all time high this summer, people began changing their habits resulting in using less gasoline. They began using public transportation, car pooling, driving more efficient vehicles, etc.
The end result was as USE decreased, and SUPPLY remained constant, the price of gasoline decreased.


Don't forget the part where the stock market started tanking and the people who traded gasoline futures were losing money so they sold their stock, causing gas to be worth less. This in turn caused the price of gasoline to go down. Can't forget the future traders. And if I am not mistaken, when prices were at the highest OPEC was talking about decreasing production and saying there was not a shortage at that time and there was no logical reason for the price of gasoline to skyrocket as much as it had. Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they did.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 



Why should there be a luxury tax on anything. Did you ever think that they guy buying that yacht is probably:
1. Creating work for people who build, maintain and store boats
2. Creating profits for the companies that build, maintain, and store boats. This profit is then taxed.
3. Already paid tax on the money he is buying the boat with when he made the money.
4. Probably had to create a lot of other jobs for people to make enough money to buy a yacht.

I am not rich but I just dont get the concept of punishing some guy for being rich. I am just not that petty and jealous of some one elses success.


[edit on 3-11-2008 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Good! Maybe people will stop being so wasteful, lower their carbon footprints and help us become more independent as regards our energy use.


If people want to drive their Hummers and waste our resources, then they should be allowed to. But they should pay more.

Some people are environmentally conscious, and take great care to make their footprint as small as possible for the good of the country and the planet. For those who aren't willing to, let them pay for it. I'm paying voluntarily, but not everyone is willing to do that. So, since they can afford it and aren't concerned about the future they're leaving to their children, let them pay cash for it now. Maybe they'll start turning off some lights, trade in their Hummer for a RAV and recycle something now and then.

If it helps us get a little "greener" I'm all for it.


Two things:

1 - If he hikes taxes on things doesn't that stand to reason that the industries will raise prices to compensate? And if people use those things less, don't you see jobs being lost as a result? How is that productive to the economy?

2 - You say that now because it hasn't affected you, personally. What if Obama decided that feeding pets, say particularly dogs, was wasteful because we're taking resources away from poor people by doing it, so he's going to double the price of dog food? How would YOU respond?

Not well, I would assume.

What happens when he decides that trips to Las Vegas or other such cities are equally wasteful as people would be just going to waste their hard earned money, so he's going to increase airline fares and taxes to that city, hotel taxes in Nevada and Casino tax rates?

Or what about if he decides there are too many fat people in America and since fast food is a leading contributor, he's going to increase taxes on all fast food restaurants to make them less affordable?

I see this as being the first step in telling us how to live, morally. Next he will be telling us when we can and cannot watch TV, what we can and cannot drive, etc.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
U shud run for office




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Once this occurs, the government then has a vested interest in seeing to it that the "bad" habits being taxed continue so that the government can continue to collect revenue. When the government taxes smoking, they do not do so in the hopes that people will smoke less. They SAY that is why they are doing it but it's a lie. If people stopped smoking because of higher cigarrette taxes, the government would no longer have revenue from that source and would have to either cut services or raise taxes somewhere else to make up for it.

This is why taxing bad habits to reduce their pervasiveness is a really, really bad idea. Taxing fossil fuels simply further entrenches said fossil fuels into the U.S. economy. Eliminate the fossil fuels and the government has no tax income! Therefore in order to sustain itself, the U.S. not only taxes the fossil fuels, but they must then promote the sale of fossil fuels. Or cigarettes, or whatever else they tax.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
i don't know if any of the anti-Obama posters in this thread have bought a pack of cigarettes in New York recently. go price them out, and you'll see that this is not a new idea.

i look forward to seeing it applied to 12-mile-per-gallon SUVs as well.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Good! Maybe people will stop being so wasteful, lower their carbon footprints and help us become more independent as regards our energy use.


If people want to drive their Hummers and waste our resources, then they should be allowed to. But they should pay more.


Uhhhh. They already do pay more. They buy more gas. They pay more tax on the sale of the Hummer. They pay more for the tires.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by nh_ee

I don't feel that this is another Obama ploy to rid the world of its freedoms. Its called Keynesian Economics or the Laws of Supply and Demand.

Case in Point:

Recent gasoline prices.
When gas prices hit an all time high this summer, people began changing their habits resulting in using less gasoline. They began using public transportation, car pooling, driving more efficient vehicles, etc.
The end result was as USE decreased, and SUPPLY remained constant, the price of gasoline decreased.





Now I know the government does a ton of these sin tax type things, but I dont agree with it. They shoud have no role in what we choose to do with our money. If someone wants to smoke let them. Just let them pay for the health costs themselves or die when they get lung cancer. It called freedom of choice and living with the consequences of your choices.


Your freedom of choice ends where my rights begin. Clearly freedom of choice does not mean you can vandalize or steal, because that infringes upon the rights of others.

What is at stake here is fuel and energy, which are *no longer* so abundant that you can use a freedom of choice argument.

When you waste oil and pollute the environment you infringe upon the rights of others because it directly affects the price of fuel.

Look at how quickly gas became cheaper when the price of oil went up and we all started driving less. Americans started planning their trips and suddenly fuel is dropping in price.

Now why would anybody have the right of increasing *my* gas price and the gas price of everyone's children by driving an SUV to Costco to just buy a box of M&Ms?

People need to realize that this is not *their* oil to waste and *their* environment to crap all over, but everyone's.

-rrr



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

It's not punishing. But in all honesty, we all know there are far too many Leona Helmslys in this world. People that reach the brass ring by using others without thought one for the people being exploited for their benefit.

OK, look at it this way: If I've made a billion dollars using the system, then I ought, by common decency, owe proportionally more to the system that allows me to live in the lap of luxury, with every want and whim fulfilled, than some poor guy working two jobs to pay for a 1200 square foot home and a 5 year old car. Because while I rest in splendor, my fellow citizen toils to keep the system running. The system worked in my favor, and now that I'm rich, I should give back more.

And for our Christians, doesn't the Bible say even God sees it that way? Luke 12:48 would indicate that The Almighty is a socialist on some levels.





As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
It was a mistake to let the government creep in with the sales taxes that have obviously gotten out of hand.

Representatives should have been working long ago to offer multi teer sales taxes as a replacement for income tax. Now we pay income tax and sales taxes. I would much rather prefure choosing which products to support and having a say in which products my government supports (they will support popular products to keep revenue high) rather than forking over 35% of my pay some "service" that i never see, plus pay tax on anything i buy with what is left over.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Are you serious?!

This changes my vote!

just joking.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


Then where do we draw the line? Maybe we should all start riding bikes and make cars illegal. We should just let the government decide everything we do. By the way there is plenty of oil in the ground. Its not like we are down to the last drop. Guess what, when we run out of it that will solve the whole environmental crapola you are so worried about.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
OH DO COME ON PEOPLE !!

Because of GWB we the WORLD is a mess.
the USA are the financial and military leaders, and on both fronts the world is GONE.

Someone has to have the cahonahs (spelling) to step up to the plate and put things in place, that long term will assure our very survival.

4 years of McCain will push the world to WW3 (FACT)

give us Obama, we have change, and i think this boy can save the world.

we cant keep going this way, we need something new, new ideas etc.

if we (the people of the world) were forces to do certain things to assure we can survive long term, then maybe it needs done.

the way things are now, its not working.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
sos37 - Obama's not talking about taxes or "hiking taxes on things". I'm not talking about a luxury tax on yachts or trips to Las Vegas. It's not about what wealthy people can afford.
If you can afford a yacht, go for it. But when it comes to the NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES we ALL use, if you're going to waste it like there's no tomorrow, then you should have to pay more for it. Per Unit!

If I scrimp and save and turn off lights and bike and take the bus, I don't think I should pay the same per gallon as the guy who drives his Hummer by himself 50 miles a day without a care. And not enough people are doing it voluntarily to make the difference we ALL need.

I could afford it, by the way. This isn't about being poor or rich. It's about the Earth running out of the means of supporting us.

Dog Food is NOT a non-renewable resource.



Originally posted by tyranny22
Are you serious?!

This changes my vote!


I know. I've wanted to say this several times today.
Lots of Anti-Obama change-your-vote-at-the-last-minute kind of stuff.





top topics
 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join