House successfully vote to help raise taxes against poor and middle class

[jillio]

failed to take note of? no that is what I'm telling you guys for the whole time - there isn't much scientific data to point that CO2 is the main culprit..... whereas Al Gore says it is the culprit. I've already repeatedly said that the scientific community has not been able to conclude on anything.

Nor is there empirical evidence to prove that it isn't. That is what you are failing to take note of.

 

[jillio]

You forget, Jillio. Gore already proclaimed that there is a "scientific consensus" that man-made CO2 caused the the Earth to warm up. And that there is no more debate. "The debate has ended!" Riiiight.

Fact is, there is no proof of manmade CO2 that caused Earth to warm up. NONE. Zilcho. Nada. Zero.

Proof is in the oxygen-isotope sea core studies that go back to 600 million years. Studies showed that CO2 concentration fluctuated between 200 to 7000 ppm and that average temperature fluctuated between 12 and 22 degrees Celsius. All without any human's influence on CO2. Go figure!

And you are claiming that there is a scietific consensus to support your view. And there isn't.

Nor is there proof that it didn't.

You seem to be isolating one thing and attempting to make it the single culprit. Oh, if it were only that simple. But we see why you do it.

 

[jillio]

I don't understand why they want to charge the poor and middle class more taxes for to reduce the carbon dixiode, those classes don't have much of money to pollute the earth. It was those who have a lot of money that cause more pollution because they can buy anything that can cause pollution such like snow mobiles, boats, cars, etc.

I am in poor class, but I don't have much things that cause the pollution, even don't have a car, or maybe just my garbage counts? :roll:

That's just the right wingers trying to throw a scare into you. Don't fall for it. They simply try to scare the poor and middle class into buying their BS because they don't want to take the responsibility for changing their own behaviors.

 

[jillio]

Jiro, even scientists today readily admit they do not fully understand the dynamics of the ozone development and they cannot conclusively say that there was no "hole" prior to 1974 when first discovered. Just like CO2's role in global warming. They also cannot prove that CFC is in fact causing (or has caused) the ozone to get thinner. This is the SAME TEMPLATE being used for the CO2 scare. "Ozone HOLE" sounds really scary to the uneducated saying it was solely caused by man's use of CFC just as using the words "global warming as caused by man's use of hydrocarbons to create additional CO2." Both of these instances never had any shred of proof that those things were the case. NONE!

Ask yourself. Why is there no ozone "hole" in the North Pole but the South Pole has it?

Ozone can only be created with the help of sunlight (UV rays). No sun. No ozone. Both poles get no sun 6 months out of the year. How come the North Pole does not have an ozone "hole" where must of the industrial countries reside that produced most of the CFC?

Secondly, there is no hole. Just a thinning ozone layer. No hole.

Look to the sun. That's most of the answer right there.

Methinks you've been looking to the sun once too often.

 

[Hwy99]

That's just the right wingers trying to throw a scare into you. Don't fall for it. They simply try to scare the poor and middle class into buying their BS because they don't want to take the responsibility for changing their own behaviors.

That's what I thought so

 

[Hwy99]

They are not. Rather they are going to try and force companies to reduce the CO2 (or carbon footprint) and that requires a few trillion of dollars overall. The cost of doing that is transferred over to consumers who will pay a much higher price for a product. It's forcing them to pay more which is like a tax. Only that this more insidious and irresponsible to those who cannot afford the higher costs of products the buy and use.

Then who do you think that should pay the tax? The poor to middle class people or the companies?

 

[darkdog]

That's funny coming from a right winger on the eve of the Sanford scandal!!!

Are you saying that because Mark Sanford's a hypocrite, all right wingers are? I thought you opposed guilt by association.

The difference here is that nobody's trying to excuse Mark Sanford, but plenty of people, including yourself, are trying to excuse Al Gore from living a luxurious lifestyle while telling those of us who can't afford his lifestyle that we need to do with less.

Again, I refer you to Chem 101. CO2 is also toxic and a pollutant and certain levels. As has already been pointed out, it does not have to harm the human body in order to classify as a pollutant.:roll:

Basic chemistry classes don't go into issues of toxicology or climate science. All chemistry 101 teaches is about the protons, neutrons, electrons, atomic mass, orbitals, valence band, isotopes, etc. of carbon and oxygen and the sorts of chemical reactions CO2 is involved in. The determination of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere is a much more complex thing that chemistry 101 can't begin to cover.

Besides, it seems like kokonut might already know a thing or two about chemistry. At least he's trying to delve into specifics while you're sitting there saying, "Take chemistry 101". It's like something Homer Simpson would say.
"Oh Marge, looks like somebody needs to take chemistry 101!"
"Grrr..."

Your post is very typical of a self centered, no one matters but me, excessive use is good, excessive spending is good, ill informed, ignore what doesn't support my excessive position right winger.

So once again, we're in jillio logic land where those of us who don't want the government to purposely decrease the standard of living for all in pursuit of a very questionable solution to a problem that may or may not exist are simply selfish, don't want to help anyone, and love excess. We especially don't appreciate having such solutions thrust upon us by people who live far much more luxuriously than we do and are far less charitable with their own money than we are.

 

[jillio]

Are you saying that because Mark Sanford's a hypocrite, all right wingers are? I thought you opposed guilt by association.

The difference here is that nobody's trying to excuse Mark Sanford, but plenty of people, including yourself, are trying to excuse Al Gore from living a luxurious lifestyle while telling those of us who can't afford his lifestyle that we need to do with less.

Basic chemistry classes don't go into issues of toxicology or climate science. All chemistry 101 teaches is about the protons, neutrons, electrons, atomic mass, orbitals, valence band, isotopes, etc. of carbon and oxygen and the sorts of chemical reactions CO2 is involved in. The determination of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere is a much more complex thing that chemistry 101 can't begin to cover.

Besides, it seems like kokonut might already know a thing or two about chemistry. At least he's trying to delve into specifics while you're sitting there saying, "Take chemistry 101". It's like something Homer Simpson would say.
"Oh Marge, looks like somebody needs to take chemistry 101!"
"Grrr..."


So once again, we're in jillio logic land where those of us who don't want the government to purposely decrease the standard of living for all in pursuit of a very questionable solution to a problem that may or may not exist are simply selfish, don't want to help anyone, and love excess. We especially don't appreciate having such solutions thrust upon us by people who live far much more luxuriously than we do and are far less charitable with their own money than we are.

Again missed the point entirely. But that is becoming all too predictable. It seems? Perhaps to you. And again with the fear tactics and the hypocrisy. "I'll force my views on you, but don't you dare attempt to force yours on me!" It's laughable.

 

[darkdog]

Then who do you think that should pay the tax? The poor to middle class people or the companies?

Even if the companies pay for it directly, you still have to pay for it. When you buy a product, part of the price is the company's overhead. If their overhead increases because of a carbon tax, then the price of the product increases.

Even if the companies simply absorb the cost, the shareholders pay, and that includes anyone with a stock portfolio, mutual funds, 401K, etc. In other words, you and I still pay.

Part of the problem is the invisible costs. We'll never know what products weren't developed because companies didn't have the money to take the initiatives because of this legislation. When times get tough, the first thing that gets cut is research and development. Ironically enough, we may miss out on some great efficient energy technology because of this.

 

[jillio]

Lots of big "ifs" in there.

 

[darkdog]

jillio, what would you ever do without this emoticon?
You would never have a point to make!

 

[jillio]

jillio, what would you ever do without this emoticon?
You would never have a point to make!

I'd have plenty of points to make. I just wouldn't be as effective in communicating my reaction to yours.

 

[Hwy99]

Even if the companies pay for it directly, you still have to pay for it. When you buy a product, part of the price is the company's overhead. If their overhead increases because of a carbon tax, then the price of the product increases.

Even if the companies simply absorb the cost, the shareholders pay, and that includes anyone with a stock portfolio, mutual funds, 401K, etc. In other words, you and I still pay.

Part of the problem is the invisible costs. We'll never know what products weren't developed because companies didn't have the money to take the initiatives because of this legislation. When times get tough, the first thing that gets cut is research and development. Ironically enough, we may miss out on some great efficient energy technology because of this.

That's why I don't understand why the poor to middle class was the target.

Everyone was supposed to pay for that, actually.

 

[darkdog]

Lots of big "ifs" in there.

You say that as if the alternative to my "ifs" invalidate my points.

If the companies don't have to pay the costs directly, that means you and I do (i.e. the poor and middle class).

If the companies don't absorb the costs, that means they past the costs along to the customers.

Now, here's my prediction for your next post:
That's even more ifs! You need to take chemistry 101! You're a fear-mongering right wing hypocrite!

Just thought I'd save you the effort. You may cut and paste if you wish.

 

[darkdog]

That's why I don't understand why the poor to middle class was the target.

Everyone was supposed to pay for that, actually.

Yeah, the rich will pay, too. But at least they can afford it. It'll hurt the poor and middle class more.

 

[jillio]

You say that as if the alternative to my "ifs" invalidate my points.

If the companies don't have to pay the costs directly, that means you and I do (i.e. the poor and middle class).

If the companies don't absorb the costs, that means they past the costs along to the customers.

Now, here's my prediction for your next post:
That's even more ifs! You need to take chemistry 101! You're a fear-mongering right wing hypocrite!

Just thought I'd save you the effort. You may cut and paste if you wish.

Nice to see you have finally gotten the message.

 

[jillio]

That's why I don't understand why the poor to middle class was the target.

Everyone was supposed to pay for that, actually.

Bingo. The title was intentionally worded to create fear in the poor to middle class, typically who are democratic voters. A very transparent effort to further a personal agenda.

 

[shel90]

Yeah, the rich will pay, too. But at least they can afford it. It'll hurt the poor and middle class more.

Why didnt the title say that? Why did it make it sound like the poor and middle class will be the only group subjected to this tax?

 

[Jiro]

You have a degree in environmental chemistry? Since when?

perhaps you might want to look back and read again. You should remember that I suck in chemistry. I've mentioned it quite a number of times

but since we're on that subject, do you?

 

[Jiro]

Correct. Beowulf falls into a much higher league.

right.... using source from... "questionable" shoddy sites... the one who believed bringing down the Saddam statue was the American ploy to uh... whatever.

perhaps CO2 level is a bit too high in his room....