reply to post by NoHierarchy
Did you really need to copy my entire post, only to then ignore, misrepresent or misinterpret what I said?
... And as a general rule of political thumb- Republicans represent big business/banking FAR more than Democrats do... however
Democrats are ONLY the lesser evil and are absolutely guilty of coddling the corporatist/plutocratic state of society.
My response was to a statement that said, in effect, the people who profit the most from business and investment are republicans. We both know that
is absolutely untrue. It had nothing to do with pro-business or anti-business politics. Both sides, take from, cater to and exploit business to
remain in office.
Also... you've inserted paranoia about a carbon-tax.
Paranoia? Did you not read the link? Do you contend that Obama's inter-agency task force did not cobble together last February a "Social Cost of
Carbon" regulatory factor that adds to the cost of fuel, production, and consumption? From a president who promised "not one dime?" A tax that
adds about $.20/gallon to fuel? That has increased the costs of vehicles, appliances and power production? It is not paranoia when
they are doing what you say they are.
First of all, there is nothing to really fear in a carbon tax except higher prices.
Does this mean that you think oil companies don't make enough already?
Actually, there's loss of productivity, lack of congressional authority or oversight, failure of purpose, loss of competitiveness, re-distribution of
income, surreptitious imposition of tax outside of Constitutional authority, absence of public acknowledgment, DENIAL of doing so ("cost/benefit"
analysis v. "feasibility" analysis) and misrepresentation of reality by the chief executive. Doesn't mean I'm afraid, though.
And, what's so good about higher prices (and corporate profits) without any benefit in exchange?
Sounds like theft.
Other countries have implemented carbon taxes WITHOUT tyranny upon their citizenry.
Unless you consider that they have driven their
respective economies over a cliff.
The UK has a "ghost cost of carbon" equal to almost $150/ton of CO2. It hasn't reduced CO2 output, it hasn't affected climate change, and it has
raised power and fuel and food costs to the point that there are street demonstrations and strikes in the UK and across the continent. Maybe not
tyranny of power, but tyranny of economy - they've artificially raised costs for NO benefit.
There isn't some worldwide conspiracy to tax the air we breathe... that's insane both to suggest and also insane to implement, it would
Why include this; is it one of YOUR paranoid fears? Show me where anything I've ever posted anywhere even suggests this. Its insertion here is
either projection, or an attempt to insinuate something about me. I never said it, so that just leaves you.
Also, carbon taxes are actually EFFECTIVE but are NOT the answer to our AGW problems.
Effective at what, if they don't fix "our AGW problems?" WHAT AGW problems?
Carbon taxes are effective as a transfer of wealth, nothing more.
We must also keep in mind that Americans pay PIDDLE for petrol compared to the rest of the world (except perhaps Iraqis or Saudis).
Perhaps that's because we only have to import a small portion from overseas. We have domestic production and refining; our largest suppliers are on
our borders. We do not bear the same COSTS of production, transport, refining and acquisition that others do. Why should we pay what they do? (Of
course, Energy Sec. Chu - who helped draft the SCC tax - has always said we should pay European prices for fuel and power.)
The amount of money we pay also DOES NOT take into account the full costs of petroleum.
Actually, the task force had a range in from
which to choose for the SCC; they settled on the one in the middle.
Mind you, I do not agree that they calculated the costs correctly, just pointing out that Obama's Energy, Climate, EPA, National Security, Trade,
Science and Environmental czars/agencies all participated between mid-2009 to Feb 2010 in doing just that: accounting for the full costs of petroleum.
Hell, Obama's former cronies at the Univ. of Chicago School of Law, Posner and Masur even published a paper criticizing the use of
" in their "accounting. So while they've
tried to take costs inrto account, they pourposely chose the WRONG method to do so.
The bottom line is- and I think we can all agree- that we must stop the rampant corporatism in our society and force the will of the people
back into the vast majority of our government's agenda.
No, I don't agree. What is your definition of "corporatism;" I've seen several different ones on ATS, not all of them consistent. What is your
definition of "rampant," and why must rampant corporatism be stopped?
What do you perceive "the will of the people" to be, exactly? Your people, liberal people, conservative people, lizard people?
How and what type of "force" are you intending/willing to use?
How, exactly, is your last sentence on-topic, or even relevant to my post?