Obama urges Carbon Tax

Well, Obama definately has the average American's interest at heart, right?

Wrong.

This idea is horrible for an already hurting economy. Basically, this tax targets anything that creates carbon emissions and companies and taxes them depending on how much they produce, guess what'll happen to the US coal, gas, and steel companies if this passes? I've been told that Granite Steel, a large steel company in Illinois, would go bankrupt if this tax passes due to the large volume of carbon it produces.

Also, families would be taxed because of the carbon emitting appliances in thier homes. This means that Obama was lieing during his campaign saying he would reduce taxes on families, he trying to do the opposite! Some say this tax could go so far as to regulate how often people must replace carbon emitting items they use. So, that car is over 7 years old? Replace it or be fined. Your Fridge is 10 years old? Replace it or be fined.

And where, may I ask, would all these items be produced? Definately not in the US, as the companies wont be able to afford the tax from producing them at that scale.

And where did the idea for this come from? From the bogus idea that carbon is the main cause of global warming, which science states is incorrect.

I've heard of people hesitating about thier plans to start a business because they are unsure as to how the administrators would act if the tax becomes reality.

Sure this could make the US less dependant on fossile fuels and move toward other sources, but is it really worth it to hamper the economy again and hurt families?

I normally wouldn't link Fox News, but this looked like a good article: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/06/26/obamas-tax-increase-americans/

 

wow, this seems a bit extreme trying to go green. I mean, we already have our problems, we dont need more businesses shutting down because of this.

 

It will never get passed. Just thank who ever we have a senate that will have enough sanity to NOT allow this to be passed. Its unfortunate we live in a country as money grubbing as ours, but it seems this time it will do us some good. Those senators who rely on campaign contributions from those companies are gonna vote against it. That along with the fact they will lose votes, and drown in negative public opinions. I highly doubt anyone will touch this proposal with anything but a match.

 

http://www.debatepolitics.com/


Honestly, we're a video game forum

:/

 

you are misinformed.

 

He's conservative.

Of course he is.

 

No offense Eon, but I would guess it would be hard to find a percentage point or two of truth in that article. The language it uses is just far to extreme and loaded to be interpreted any other way than extremely biased. Because of that to take any part of it as truth without supporting evidence would be a major fallacy. I challenge someone who really wants to prove how disatrous the bill will to actually quote the language of the bill causing the problem and link a nuetral study as to why that part of the bill will cause what is being claimed.

 

So being a conservative means I'm misinformed? What sort of bs is that?

I actually dont like Fox, but as everyone always demands evidence when stuff like this is posted, I thought it would be worth looking through Google's News search to find something. I dont know how you guys always find goodnews articles to post, I just found random stuff that didnt seem to have any use.

All that I stated in the OP was from what I heard through word-of-mouth since my family was discussing it tonight. Also, none of my family watches Fox.

Anyway, I still fail to see how taxing companies for producing carbon is going to help the economy. If someone can explain that to me, go right ahead.

 

The government is not going to tax individual consumers when they purchase appliances, nor are they going to fine those who refuse to buy energy efficient ones.

Also, the tax you're discussing is part of an ongoing cap and trade policy that allows companies to purchase carbon allowances until they can come within the limits mandated by the EPA.

Of course measures like this are going to affect different companies in different ways, and some might even go out of business. But it's not going to be the end of our economy either. Historically there have been hundreds of measures just like this one taken for different reasons. It's like when the meat packing industry was forced to institute tighter safety regulations to prevent human contamination.

People cried that it would bankrupt the companies and in the end it made the U.S. beef industry much stronger. It's likely that the same thing would occur here. But something's got to give and in this case it's going to be energy intensive industries.

Honestly, I don't really know where I stand as far as emission taxes and carbon reduction mostly because I don't know what the best route is to take. But Obama was elected as President and so I trust his initiatives more than the opinions of those who are currently out of office because of the stupidity they exemplified the last eight years.

 

Phoe, two points. One, we've debated similar things on this forum, so shut up. Two, don't spew your BS abotu conservatives being misinformed just because you're not. I'm not going around saying liberals are stupid just because they're liberals, so can it and keep your left-winged opinions to yourself if all your'e going to do is just say it, and not even defend a viewpoint.

Alright, onto the topic. Yes, it's called the cap on trade. Yesterday when i was at a privately owned computer store with my dad, the woman who's big into politics talked to us about it. The cap on trade basically will tax you on carbon emissions (one of the bits of it, that is). Granite city steel is on annual maintenance right now, and if the bill is passed they won't reopen. And they just finished a new building here for clean coal and oil production. It would give 8000 jobs here to people who need them. But with the high taxes on carbon, they won't even open if it's passed. Why? Because Obama hates coal. He's said it in conferences and time and time again he doesn't like coal but not that anyone took that to heart. He's all about change, he's all about the American people! Did you know instead of going to talk to granite steel and help them he went up to Canada and helped out with THEIR steel manufacturing plant even though they didn't want it, it was poorly built and they didn't want it anymore? And he still cares about America he claims, and wants goods to be made here? Seems kinda like BS to me.

Also, it will require new uses of refrigerators and ovens, yes. You say you can't make people do that, but under new regulations they'd have to be updated and such. And yes, the part about cars is true, too. I asked my dad how anyone can possibly go through with that, it's called not issuing liscence plates to cars older than a certain age, and not allowing them to pass toll booths and other places. So yes, they will do that. It's been talked about, it's because they think older cars are 'klunkers' and carbon spewing junk. Well my da's car gets better mileage than a lot of new cars coming out. Oh, but the gov't will give you $4,500 dollars towards a new car! tell me where you can buy a new model for 4.5k.

It's not like the meat plant where they made regulations, they're just going to tax what is made. I'm not saying I hate Obama or whatever, or that I think he's a bad president. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, you know. True, I'm not a democrat, but it doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and begrudge his administration for it. He's doing the best he can right now and i thank him for that. But this cap on trade is a bad idea, and from what it seems like, a poor move. if i'm getting this wrong, someone please link me and tell me the real facts. But as i've seen so far from sites even for it, it can't prove it wrong that it's taking carbon emissions and thus going to put many places out of business just because they cannot afford it. I just don't trust Obama's character. He already claimed he didn't want to run an auto industry but already bought out GM, didn't he? And now he wants to get rid of green house gases (which, there is just as much evidence against as for it) by shutting down our companies with excessive taxes while other countries with less regulations produce them instead? I'm sorry if it seems i'm judge mental, but to me it seems counter productive.

I do know it probably won't pass because the senate, but sill, the overall idea seems rather broken to me.

 

First off, i'm trying to stop it.

Second:



Are you trying to tell me that Fox News is, in any way shape and or form, a valid source of news? Fox News is the number one conservative newssource. It is also the least accurate, most biased, bigoted sack of **** on air. So, forgive me for assuming that anyone who follows Fox News is not misinformed.

 

As eon SAID in the FIRST post. he doens't normally like fox news, and we don't EVER watch it. not all conservatives are misinformed, just the stupid one on the air. Don't judge people just because their news is crap. Or I can just say liberals like hearing about deaths and robberies daily since it's on the news almost ALL the time.

And since when were you trying to stop it? @_@ you've made threads on it, too, if i'm not mistaken. perhaps before we get rid of the political threads you should stop your random one picture threads no one cares about XP

 

Fox News is the self-proclaimed number one news source for Conservatives. Meaning that's where the majority of right wings get their info. If Fox News is misinformed (or outright lies; kinda hard to mess up McCain's political orientation), then their viewers are as well. There's really not much you deviate.

And, no, you can't say we like murder and theft. Completely different aspect.

The liberal side of the media doesn't lie about who was killed or robbed.


And I haven't made of of those random pic threads in like two weeks.

 

*is hoping for a mod fight*

and i agree with Kozo that you cant say an entire group of people is misinformed, even if you look at that graph, "only" 67% of the people believed it, making you wrong one third of the time.

i agree with Fenix that fox news sucks though(i have seen a little of it, not much though, i want to see more for LOLZ)

 

So kurai your primary source of information on this bill is a computer store owner (who likely had a conservative opinion to begin with, so was predisposed against the bill)? TBH it almost sounds like the store owner read the article Eon linked combined it with some other rumors and regurgitated it to you.

I spent the last half hour trying to find an unbiased interpretation of the bill and the closest I came was a cost assement from the CBO. However the the bits and peices I have picked up combined with a couple of older articles I read on the subject suggest that you are at the very least misinterpreting the part about personal transportation. The way I understand it, the bill gives a rebate if you trade in a car with X MPG for car with better Y MPG. I don't believe there is any requirement to buy a new car, just an incentive to do so.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009384418_apusclimateqa.html?syndication

 

maybe, kerwyn, gimme a sec to read this.

thank you, exe *Reads*

Okie dokie, it may not force people to have them. But what it does say i'm still not keen about.
'his limit effectively puts a price on the pollution, raising the cost for companies to continue to use fuels and electricity sources that contribute to global warming. This gives them an incentive to seek cleaner alternatives.'
won't that just shut factories down? Yeah, i know they said the same for meat packing, but there are alternate ways to pack meat. There are other ways for energy like wind turbines or solar panels but those are extremely expensive for the average person to just buy, even for companies, too. Not too mention a Harley shop around here had tons of issue even getting ONE wind turbine up. It's going to be hard for companies to use those. It's going to be all pricey, all the way. and he's not helpign them afford better things, jsut punishing them for using older methods.

Not to mention the cost will drive a lot of businesses out. It's buy a permit-which costs money. Or get an alternate0which also costs money. what happens if they don't have enough? they go out of business, and as i said, foreign companies will get hold of it, ones that don't have the restrictions we do. so as i said, it still seems counter productive =/

'They all worry about the cost and the loss of jobs if industries move to countries that do not have controls on greenhouse gases. The bill has provisions to prevent this, but there are questions whether they will work.'
Maybe i wouldn't be so sketchy if they said what precautions they had. Instead they say they do and go okay let's move on! I also still dunno about green house gasses. there is still not a whole lot of ecidence to prove it. yeah, pollution is a problem and yay for crackign down, i really mean it. But temps are also raising steadily on mercury and venus and we haven't been polluting those, you know. So I'm still wondering if these are even the right steps toward reducing the temperature and such. It still leaves me to wonder. The thing said it will cost Americans an average of $175 a year. not a whole lot, but that's just guessing and i worry about that =/

 

I used the word "misinformed" very intentionally. This word is not the same as stupid, as one poster tried to equate them.

Misinformed means you do not have the right information to draw conclusions. Your conclusions are probably right, based on the information you have, but if that information is wrong, your conclusions may be wrong. You can still be smart and draw the wrong conclusions if given the wrong information, and with so much disinformation spread by Fox News and some of the most powerful entities in the world- Big Coal, and Big OIl- I do not blame you. Exxon and Chevron spend hundreds of millions each year lobbying.

An example of misinformation- that anyone would be forced to throw out old cars or appliances. This is patently false. There are incentives for buying efficient equipment, but anyone with any knowledge of global warming understands that a huge amount of carbon goes into the making of a product, car or toaster, so the true path to sustainability is to use equipment for as long as possible, and then recycle them.

Finally, in response to a couple of poster's comments that there is evidence against the human link to global warming, there a 1000s of phds in everything from thermodynamic physics to ocean biology who will tell you global warming is real and man made, for every 1 lobbyist or crackpot scientist being paid to say otherwise. My own neighbor, a retired university physicist, and I emphasize retired because this means he has no economic incentives to have one opinion or the other, says the physical mechanisms behind global warming are irrefutable.

Wake up to reality. I am glad that most of the people who run this site have.

 

And as for how this effects this economy, yes it does slow things down, it does make things more expensive.

However, this is reality. The problem with the current market is that it does not take into account the true cost of any good. Yes, the transportation cost, marketing cost, manufacturing cost....those are all reflected in the price tag.

But virtually no company factors in the cost to the environment. Why? Environmental change is far off, is unproved, is not our problem, they say.

Humans have a tendency to assume they are in the clear so long as they are making money and there is no immediate impact. The impact will come in the decades to come, which is why we need to force companies to start factoring in the true cost of carbon now.

 

alright, thanks for the info, fiasco. you and exe are a big help.

Also, i know that global warming has equal support against it.. I personally and still unsure if we're affecting the climate at all. But I don't want to draw conclusions on that until there is a better amount of consistent evidence.