Thread: Carbon Tax

The Federal Government imposes taxes for one reason only, and that is control.

Originally Posted by goober

MAha, you are a funny man,

Why thank you Goober. Its not easy considering my forte is physical comedy.

I appreciate your clownish posts.

Coming from the clown in chef among us, I’ll take that as a compliment.

But, be serious for a minute, and tell what taxes you approve of, I'd be interested to see that list...

While I may bitch about the rate being too high, local property taxes make complete sense, and when applied and set at the right level are not economically damaging since the market adjusts to them. The revenue of which goes directly to local need. At the Federal level, the gas tax is reasonable and they go to the upkeep of our highways. They are also user specific. If I don’t drive or own a vehicle I’m not buying gas and I am not driving on the roads.

This is one of the basic straw men arguments of the left, like the regulation arguments. Conservatives do not want burdensome regulations, no one is advocating for a regulation free anarchy. Conservatives understand the need for the government to tax, what they have a problem with are inane attempts to use taxes to promote whatever social policies that happen to be in vague and the government’s misuse and continuously overspending. Taxes should be as low as possible and the government should structure taxes to maximize revenue without causing an unnecessary burden to the American people and the economy as a whole. The burden of taxes is not just the paying of them, but the costs incurred complying with them. The purpose of taxes is to fund the required constitutional duties of government and nothing more.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Please sir. Do some research on the welfare reforms under clinton. The old welfare system of LBJ was deeply flawed.

Yep, it helped ruin the lives of millions of African-Americans.

That has been corrected, mostly.

The new welfare system is deeply changed from the one that created the welfare society.

Oh giggles. It appears that you need to keep up Blue, grant this was very recent -- Republicans cry foul over Obama welfare revisions “The Obama administration has opened the door to changes in the welfare system's work requirements, a section of the 1996 welfare-to-work law that Republicans consider sacrosanct.”

Allegedly Obama taught constitutional law, yet he must have a different version which gives him far more enumerated powers than the one I have. But hey, if you don’t like a law don’t enforce it. If there’s a problem a nice little presidential order will correct the issue. So much for Congress having the power to make laws.

What we are faced with now is a 14 per cent jobless rate,

Brought to us by Obamanomics.

with millions more underemployed, and that sir drives up welfare spending. You have two options as a modern civilized nation. You can simply cut these people off, and suffer the social disorder, the chaos, the rising crime rates, because these people have to obtain money to live on. And if there are 5 people for every one job, the jobs are not there. The other option is to provide welfare until jobs are created.

Your false dilemma is without foundation. Poverty does not cause crime, if it did we would have seen much more of it during the Great Depression and we would see a rising crime rate today even without changing welfare, and yes it still needs more reform. If welfare is going to be a state run entity, it should be done at the local level, not at the federal level. When government involves itself in charity the poor become pawns for politicians. Obama’s machinations that have allowed so many to get on food stamps has been a wholly political calculation. Oh, while it isn’t technically welfare, every study done on unemployment benefits shows that a large percentage of people refrain from looking for work until they are about to lose those benefits.

But when cons don't want to do that.…

:rolleyes: Unlike leftists conservatives give more to those in need with their own money, time, and blood. Conservatives believe it is their personal moral duty to help those in need.

The stats of people on welfare after the reforms went exponentially downward. It worked. But

We are suffering from stagnation caused by Obama’s ignorant and damaging economic policies.

the off shoring has given us a group of folks that are surviving off of safety nets.

False. Our current unemployment difficulties have been caused by Obamanomics and has absolutely nothing to do with the off shoring canard. The average unemployment rate while Bush was in office was 5.2%. If off shoring were the problem you claim, the unemployment rate would not have been so low during the Bush administration.

Hell, you guys act and talk like these are no account bums, who won't work. I feel this is very dishonest, and shows no moral principle. Cruel even.

Your false moral indignation is laughable. There are those who are in real need and there are those who seek to game the system. It does not help the hard feelings that 47% of Americans do not contribute to the general welfare of all Americans.

And you guys will go to great ends to justify your beliefs. Yet they cannot be justified by reasonable men, IMO. And certainly not by moral men.

Oh give me a fucking break. As I said above, conservatives give more to those in need with their own money, time, and blood then leftist-Progressives. Leftist are very giving with other people’s money, but with their own, not so much. Paying taxes is a civic and a legal duty. It is not a moral act, nor should our federal taxes be used for charity. Pushing your personal moral duty to care for those in need onto the government is not the actions of a moral being.

Darwinism has no compassion.

A meaningless truism is simply meaningless. Not only does Darwinism have no compassion, neither does the general theory of relativity, the law of gravity, or the cosmic constant.

Yet humans have to have compassion, or we self destruct.

Yes humans need wise compassion, not idiot compassion or what has been called Grandmother Zen. When the government ends up being an enabler of bad choices it is turning its back on it's constitutional duty to protect its citizens from harm.

We become not worthy of existence.

Hmm, considering the way you falsely characterize the “inner consciousness” of conservatives … well we now know what your real feelings are about the worthiness of their existence.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Why thank you Goober. Its not easy considering my forte is physical comedy.



Coming from the clown in chef among us, I’ll take that as a compliment.



While I may bitch about the rate being too high, local property taxes make complete sense, and when applied and set at the right level are not economically damaging since the market adjusts to them. The revenue of which goes directly to local need. At the Federal level, the gas tax is reasonable and they go to the upkeep of our highways. They are also user specific. If I don’t drive or own a vehicle I’m not buying gas and I am not driving on the roads.

This is one of the basic straw men arguments of the left, like the regulation arguments. Conservatives do not want burdensome regulations, no one is advocating for a regulation free anarchy. Conservatives understand the need for the government to tax, what they have a problem with are inane attempts to use taxes to promote whatever social policies that happen to be in vague and the government’s misuse and continuously overspending. Taxes should be as low as possible and the government should structure taxes to maximize revenue without causing an unnecessary burden to the American people and the economy as a whole. The burden of taxes is not just the paying of them, but the costs incurred complying with them. The purpose of taxes is to fund the required constitutional duties of government and nothing more.

tashi deleks,

M

So the property tax and the gas tax.
Anything else you find acceptable?
Because you're coming up shy on the revenue, and there are valid reasons for having a government.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Yep, it helped ruin the lives of millions of African-Americans.



Oh giggles. It appears that you need to keep up Blue, grant this was very recent -- Republicans cry foul over Obama welfare revisions “The Obama administration has opened the door to changes in the welfare system's work requirements, a section of the 1996 welfare-to-work law that Republicans consider sacrosanct.”

Allegedly Obama taught constitutional law, yet he must have a different version which gives him far more enumerated powers than the one I have. But hey, if you don’t like a law don’t enforce it. If there’s a problem a nice little presidential order will correct the issue. So much for Congress having the power to make laws.



Brought to us by Obamanomics.



Your false dilemma is without foundation. Poverty does not cause crime, if it did we would have seen much more of it during the Great Depression and we would see a rising crime rate today even without changing welfare, and yes it still needs more reform. If welfare is going to be a state run entity, it should be done at the local level, not at the federal level. When government involves itself in charity the poor become pawns for politicians. Obama’s machinations that have allowed so many to get on food stamps has been a wholly political calculation. Oh, while it isn’t technically welfare, every study done on unemployment benefits shows that a large percentage of people refrain from looking for work until they are about to lose those benefits.



:rolleyes: Unlike leftists conservatives give more to those in need with their own money, time, and blood. Conservatives believe it is their personal moral duty to help those in need.



We are suffering from stagnation caused by Obama’s ignorant and damaging economic policies.



False. Our current unemployment difficulties have been caused by Obamanomics and has absolutely nothing to do with the off shoring canard. The average unemployment rate while Bush was in office was 5.2%. If off shoring were the problem you claim, the unemployment rate would not have been so low during the Bush administration.



Your false moral indignation is laughable. There are those who are in real need and there are those who seek to game the system. It does not help the hard feelings that 47% of Americans do not contribute to the general welfare of all Americans.



Oh give me a fucking break. As I said above, conservatives give more to those in need with their own money, time, and blood then leftist-Progressives. Leftist are very giving with other people’s money, but with their own, not so much. Paying taxes is a civic and a legal duty. It is not a moral act, nor should our federal taxes be used for charity. Pushing your personal moral duty to care for those in need onto the government is not the actions of a moral being.



A meaningless truism is simply meaningless. Not only does Darwinism have no compassion, neither does the general theory of relativity, the law of gravity, or the cosmic constant.



Yes humans need wise compassion, not idiot compassion or what has been called Grandmother Zen. When the government ends up being an enabler of bad choices it is turning its back on it's constitutional duty to protect its citizens from harm.



Hmm, considering the way you falsely characterize the “inner consciousness” of conservatives … well we now know what your real feelings are about the worthiness of their existence.

tashi deleks,

M

Oh Lord! M, you are so far out there, that we can never relate, or discuss. Which is a shame sir. Almost everything you believe in, I am the polar opposite.

I will say this though. I did hear about the deal regarding it being left up to the states in how they define work in regards to the welfare system. I only heard a little bit of it on Fox last night, and not sure what it really entails. Has the repubs really upset though. But with that said, the reforms under clinton really did reform the welfare system in big ways, compared to what it used to be. It is hard to stay on welfare these days, even food stamps. Not like it used to be, and in the case of food stamps there are people who need em, but can't get em. I have never been on any welfare. But from what I hear, it ain't easy to get on welfare, even food stamps. They make it difficult. Which the cons like.

Grandmother Zen? LOL. What do you know of Zen? The state of meditation that Zen brings, the enlightenment, has nothing to do with your political/social beliefs sir. An enlightened person could never be a modern conservative. Afterall zen is a sect of buddhism, which means it should take one to the state buddha experienced and yield another buddha. Like christ buddha will filled with love of mankind. I don't see that in cons.

Originally Posted by goober

So the property tax and the gas tax.
Anything else you find acceptable?

Goober you asked what I thought were some reasonable taxes that I approved. You did not ask for a complete tax system which would be able to satisfy the legitimate (constitutional) revenue needs of government.

Because you're coming up shy on the revenue, and there are valid reasons for having a government.

Really there are valid reasons for having a government? (sarcasm alert) Ghee I guess that’s why NO ONE is advocating for NO TAXES and NO ONE is calling for the abolishment of government, just as NO ONE is calling for a regulation free anarchy. Well, except for the idiots at an OWS protest party.

Goober I could present a full list of all taxes that magically tripled or quadrupled the tax revenue to the government and you would still consider it not enough to fund your cherished leftist-Progressive policies and programs.

As I wrote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

This is one of the basic straw men arguments of the left, like the regulation arguments. Conservatives do not want burdensome regulations, no one is advocating for a regulation free anarchy. Conservatives understand the need for the government to tax, what they have a problem with are inane attempts to use taxes to promote whatever social policies that happen to be in vague and the government’s misuse and continuously overspending. Taxes should be as low as possible and the government should structure taxes to maximize revenue without causing an unnecessary burden to the American people and the economy as a whole. The burden of taxes is not just the paying of them, but the costs incurred complying with them. The purpose of taxes is to fund the required constitutional duties of government and nothing more.

If conservatives accept the premise that government needs to tax to fund its duties, it’s a pretty sure bet that conservatives believe that there is a valid need for government.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Goober you asked what I thought were some reasonable taxes that I approved. You did not ask for a complete tax system which would be able to satisfy the legitimate (constitutional) revenue needs of government.



Really there are valid reasons for having a government? (sarcasm alert) Ghee I guess that’s why NO ONE is advocating for NO TAXES and NO ONE is calling for the abolishment of government, just as NO ONE is calling for a regulation free anarchy. Well, except for the idiots at an OWS protest party.

Goober I could present a full list of all taxes that magically tripled or quadrupled the tax revenue to the government and you would still consider it not enough to fund your cherished leftist-Progressive policies and programs.

As I wrote:

If conservatives accept the premise that government needs to tax to fund its duties, it’s a pretty sure bet that conservatives believe that there is a valid need for government.

tashi deleks,

M

Maha,

This is why your posts provide such comic relief.

You blather on about how you " could present a full list of all taxes that magically tripled or quadrupled the tax revenue to the government", and yet you don't mention what these taxes are, which would have taken a lot less time than you wordy reply which always consists of some comicly absurd attempts at insult.
Why not outline what taxes you consider constitutionally appropriate to raise 3 trillion dollars next year? You'll have balanced the budget. Or at least list the constitutionally appropriate taxes that would pay for the constitutionally appropriate part of the budget.

Because hurling insult and invective at every idea, but presenting no ideas of your own, leaves me to believe that your head is filled with grey fluff.....

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Oh Lord! M, you are so far out there, that we can never relate, or discuss.

Ah, while there may be royal blood running through my veins from some distant long forgotten aristocrat, here in America there is no noble class and its unnecessary to address me as Lord.

Which is a shame sir. Almost everything you believe in, I am the polar opposite.

Well, now that’s not completely true. Neither of us support the enactment of a carbon tax.

I will say this though. I did hear about the deal regarding it being left up to the states in how they define work in regards to the welfare system. I only heard a little bit of it on Fox last night, and not sure what it really entails. Has the repubs really upset though. But with that said, the reforms under clinton really did reform the welfare system in big ways, compared to what it used to be.

The welfare reform under Clinton was a Republican effort. Yes, it did radically change the welfare system as had been set up by LBJ. More reform is still necessary.

It is hard to stay on welfare these days, even food stamps. Not like it used to be, and in the case of food stamps there are people who need em, but can't get em.

Except for those who game the system. I know of several who are capable of working to earn their needs but have played the game and receive assistance through food stamps and other benefits from the government. I also know of individuals who do really need the assistance they receive.

I have never been on any welfare.

That’s nice. Neither have I.

But from what I hear, it ain't easy to get on welfare, even food stamps. They make it difficult.

Actually its really quite easy to get on the food stamp program if you are willing to fill out the required paper work.

Which the cons like.

:rolleyes: It should be difficult to get food stamps or other government benefits. There should be a threshold that demands those applying to do whatever they can for themselves, since that is the only way they will eventually get back on their own feet. Lowering the threshold allows those who don’t really need it to abuse the system that much more easily. There is already a lot of abuse.

Grandmother Zen? LOL. What do you know of Zen?

Compared to your average American quite a lot actually. Compared to you, probably very big boat loads of a lot.

The state of meditation that Zen brings, the enlightenment, has nothing to do with your political/social beliefs sir.

No shit. Did I claim that it did? Nope.

An enlightened person could never be a modern conservative.

False. An enlightened person can be found holding any political philosophy except for those which rest upon dualistic thinking. Politics is of the relative world. Enlightenment transcends the relative.

Afterall zen is a sect of buddhism, which means it should take one to the state buddha experienced and yield another buddha.

Grandmother Zen does not lead one to the state of Buddhahood. Its nice and does not make demands. It lets you sleep late and ignore those qualities of being which keep you unenlightened. Idiot compassion is a co-dependent enabling mentality which makes no demands and coddles those in need rather than demand they work to better themselves.

Like christ buddha will filled with love of mankind. I don't see that in cons.

:rolleyes: Of course you don’t see it, since your worldview blinds you to it. Conservatives give more to those in need with their own money and time and blood then leftist-Progressives. That is a fact revealed by every study done about those who give to private charity. Leftist-Progressives are very generous with other people’s money, but with their own not so much. Do a little research Blue: who gave more to charity: Bush or Obama? Biden or Cheney? Compare the charitable giving of any conservative with the lack of giving by their liberal-leftist-Progressives counterpart. By every objective metric conservatives are more compassionate in their personal lives than liberal-leftist-Progressives. Your denials will not alter the facts.

tashi deleks,

M

There is absolutely no reason for the Federal Government to impose any taxes on people or corporations, other that to control or influence what they do. If the Federal Government needs money to support a particular issue, all they have to do is print it. By doing so, they will have devalued every other dollar out there, and therefore taxed everyone who holds a dollar. It is even a progressive tax because those who hold more dollars will be taxed at greater amount than those who hold fewer.

Originally Posted by goober

Maha,

This is why your posts provide such comic relief.

:rolleyes: And Goober moves the goal post further down the field.

You blather on about how you " could present a full list of all taxes that magically tripled or quadrupled the tax revenue to the government",

Lets place that in context Goober, I could have presented a list of all taxes that magically tripled or quadrupled tax revenue and you would still consider it not enough to fund your cherished leftist-Progressive policies and programs. That wasn’t an insult, it’s a fact. As far as you are concerned taxes aren’t high enough and spending is not a problem. Any plan that lowers both you would reject with the usual dismissive insults we have come to expect from you.

and yet you don't mention what these taxes are, which would have taken a lot less time than you wordy reply

Garbage Goober a complete dissertation would have taken far longer then my very short response. And for me that was a very short response.

which always consists of some comicly absurd attempts at insult.

:rolleyes: Other then my comment about you being the clown in chef my response was relatively free of insults real or implied. Perhaps if you refrained from the usual drivel people wouldn’t be inclined to respond in like manner.

Why not outline what taxes you consider constitutionally appropriate to raise 3 trillion dollars next year?

No Goober. You present your outline of taxes. I have answered your request already. Don’t like it, to bad.

You'll have balanced the budget. Or at least list the constitutionally appropriate taxes that would pay for the constitutionally appropriate part of the budget.

Except that I would start with cutting spending first, since that is the real problem of our fiscal difficulties. A 3 trillion dollar budget is beyond ridiculous.

Because hurling insult and invective at every idea,

Well, until you come up with a good idea and refrain from the hubris and arrogance that laces nearly everyone of your posts you’ll just have to suck it up and deal with it.

but presenting no ideas of your own,

:rolleyes: The usual mischaracterization that is your habit.

leaves me to believe that your head is filled with grey fluff.....

Good one Goober.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by goober

Ok Champ, nice realistic plan...

I'm glad that you agree.