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

[Jiro]

Then why are you continuing to bring it into the discussion? The discussion is whether or not this bill will affect the poor and middle class alone.

and I am pointing out the oxymoronic approach, misunderstanding, and misconceptions. This bill is nothing but "feel-good" approach when it does not really fix the issue.

 

[jillio]

And I quote what Al Gore said:

"The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this."

He made a totality statement saying that ALL scientists agree. Hardly the case which is why I pointed out that there are thousands of scientists with PhDs in the field of nature sciences who disagree professionally that global warming is the result of man-made CO2.

Jillio, understand that the attempt to control climate over a global scale is futile. The Earth and Sun are the biggest sources that influence the dynamics of climate....not man kind (short of detonating every nuclear warheads on Earth at once). CO2 is not a pollutant. The amount of CO2 that man produces is extremely, extremely miniscule compared the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now. Very small. Need I do a trillion dollars scenario for you again?

If you want to discuss this bill from a scientific perspective, why is it that you used a politically influenced title regarding taxes and the middle and lower income levels?

 

[jillio]

and I am pointing out the oxymoronic approach, misunderstanding, and misconceptions. This bill is nothing but "feel-good" approach when it does not really fix the issue.

And how do you apply that to taxes being levied against the middle and lower income levels disproportionately?

 

[Jiro]

And how do you apply that to taxes being levied against the middle and lower income levels disproportionately?

I'm not a politician. I don't do tax shit. but I can tell you the approach and their understanding are wrong. You got any better idea?

 

[jillio]

I'm not a politician. I don't do tax shit. but I can tell you the approach and their understanding are wrong. You got any better idea?

Don't know chemistry, and don't do taxes. Then how could you possibly make a valid determination regarding anyone's understanding or approach? Until you know what is right, you don't know what is wrong.

 

[kokonut]

If you want to discuss this bill from a scientific perspective, why is it that you used a politically influenced title regarding taxes and the middle and lower income levels?

Because it is essentially true that consumers will have to pay unnecessarily more for the cap and trade law. It is simply Congress' way on finding another way to tax corporations to abide by these new "green" laws. When you increase taxes against companies it is essentially a tax on consumers as well. No way will companies just simply absorb the cost and move on. That cost WILL be passed on down to the consumers. Unless, of course, you are saying that this will and does not happen?

 

[Jiro]

Don't know chemistry, and don't do taxes. Then how could you possibly make a valid determination regarding anyone's understanding or approach? Until you know what is right, you don't know what is wrong.

In this article - it says CO2 this, CO2 that, requiring factories, refineries, and power plants to reduce emissions, and...... get this - "it will create millions of new jobs" - Pelosi



can somebody please tell me what's wrong with this picture?

 

[jillio]

Because it is essentially true that consumers will have to pay unnecessarily more for the cap and trade law. It is simply Congress' way on finding another way to tax corporations to abide by these new "green" laws. When you increase taxes against companies it is essentially a tax on consumers as well. No way will companies just simply absorb the cost and move on. That cost WILL be passed on down to the consumers. Unless, of course, you are that this will and does not happen?

Then why is it that you did not use the term "consumers" which is all encompassing across income levels instead of limiting it to lower and middle income?

 

[kokonut]

Analysts agree that the cap and trade bill would cost millions of American jobs, shrink our economy and impose huge increases in gas prices, heating and electric bills on American families. And when energy prices go up so do the costs of other goods and services that rely on energy to sustain their operations. We saw how that happened when gasoline prices went up. Not only did consumers were forced to pay more for gasoline but saw increases in food products and products in general because it cost companies even more to transport the goods to stores for consumers to buy. Only this time the cap and trade will be even worse, sans gasoline price to hit $4, $5, or $6 dollars a gallon over the next few years.

 

[jillio]

And this would affect only the low to middle income consumers how?

 

[kokonut]

Then why is it that you did not use the term "consumers" which is all encompassing across income levels instead of limiting it to lower and middle income?

Use your social science knowledge. Which group will feel the bigger impact of rising costs and are vulnerable to those changes? Kind of shed the light on the nonsense of Obama's that 95% of taxpayers will not be taxed. There are indirect effects of raising taxes against corporations to the consumers, especially the middle and poor income class. Only this time the spider web influence will be far reaching with this cap and trade program. Utter, utter folly.

 

[kokonut]

And this would affect only the low to middle income consumers how?

Please use your PhD skill to figure that one out. Quite obvious. Unless you haven't been paying attention in this area (which might true in this case).

 

[jillio]

Use your social science knowledge. Which group will feel the bigger impact of rising costs and are vulnerable to those changes? Kind of shed the light on the nonsense of Obama that 95% of taxpayers will not be taxed. There are indirect effects of raising taxes against corporations. Only this time the spider web influence will be far reaching with the cap and trade.

I reiterate: and this would affect only the lower and middle income levels how? And how is it related to tax increases directed at the low and middle income levels only?

 

[jillio]

Please use your PhD skill to figure that one out. Quite obvious. Unless you haven't been paying attention in this area (which might true in this case).

It isn't obvious at all. Consumers is all inclusive. You obviously aren't paying attention here. How does this affect low and middle income levels only?

 

[BradB08]

Then why is it that you did not use the term "consumers" which is all encompassing across income levels instead of limiting it to lower and middle income?

Probably copying their favorite Faux spin-meister in not mentioning the facts, especially if the facts aren't in favor of the idiocracy right.

 

[jillio]

Probably copying their favorite Faux spin-meister in not mentioning the facts, especially if the facts aren't in favor of the idiocracy right.

Exactly. And it continues to be re-illustrated.

 

[Jiro]

I don't know how can you really create millions of jobs if you're putting a financial burden on factories, power plants, and refineries. What's the point of placing COSTLY cap if the environmental pollution from China comes to America? That pretty much nullified our costly effort.

(in northern hemisphere - the wind travels in Easterly direction)

 

[kokonut]

It isn't obvious at all. Consumers is all inclusive. You obviously aren't paying attention here. How does this affect low and middle income levels only?

Try again. Again it's obvious when you consider income disparity and the ability to manage increasing costs.

 

[darkdog]

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?

Why just poor and middle that would be hurt? I thought the rich class hate taxes too?

Taxes sucks, but we have to pay as long as it is needed.

Good questions. I didn't make up the title. However, the fact remains that when you lower the standard of living for everyone, it's the middle class and the poor that are impacted the most.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, this bill lowers the standard of living for everyone by 25%. For the super rich (the yaught and private plane types), that might mean getting a smaller yaught or holding onto their old private jet longer. Perhaps they'll have to fire their butler. Certainly they don't enjoy that, but they'll still live comfortably.

For the regular rich, they're mostly just people who have worked hard all their lives and finally reached a point in their careers where they can be considered successful. I'd hate to see bad legislation take away what they had worked so hard to earn. But they'll still be fine.

Now consider the middle class. Take away 25% of their standard of living and what does that mean? They might have to move back into an apartment, get a smaller house, or sell a car. For lower middle class, it might push them into poverty.

Now for the poor. The poor especially can't afford to give up 25% of their standard of living. That could push them into extreme poverty.

Yes, taxes are necessary, but this one is not. It's just another burden to an already suffering economy. $2.5 trillion is far more than the federal government needs to fulfill its constitutional duties. We don't need to add to that.

 

[darkdog]

Probably copying their favorite Faux spin-meister in not mentioning the facts, especially if the facts aren't in favor of the idiocracy right.

So you're saying that not mentioning how it'll also hurt the rich = dishonestly hiding facts. How does emphasizing concern for the middle class and the poor over the rich make one a right wing idiot? Listening to some, I would think right wing means the opposite: only caring about the rich and having no concern for the poor or middle class.