I agree completely. Some people aren't aware that Congress gets an automatic $4,700 pay increase yearly unless they vote not to. How many people here would vote *against* them getting more money? Ron Paul is one of the very few people that has been for preventing the pay increase, he has also been for reducing the amount of paid expenses that should be covered. Realistically though, the problem with the system is that the people who vote on Congressional salaries and budgets are the people who benefit from them.

Johnny, couldnt disagree more, but appreciate you thinking of it. I can never believe that the $30 tip a waiter gets from a "rich" person having a $150 dinner would be better spent giving the $30 to the government to dole out as they see fit.

Rich people spend more money, more money in the pockets of people who work.

I can completely respect that. Just a difference in opinion.

In a somewhat related note, I think reform needs to happen with regards to the way Capital Gains Tax is handled. One rate, across the board. Assuming the market will eventually come back and return to it's average of 7-11% return/year, there shouldn't be a need to "provide an incentive" for people to invest in the capital market.

Bingo,very big part of the current crisis.

Next debacle will be the defaults on credit cards.

Ihmo, if Greenspan had acted slower on reducing interest rates, the bubble could have been deflated a lot slower stabilizing things over a long period of time.

But ya know we were/are a country of, "i want it and i want it now."

And, sadly "I want yours, too."

I don't mean to hijack my thread back to carbon credits, but....

How long before we have to buy carbon credits from the government for our big houses, boats and SUVs.?

I will say within a year.........

Look at it as another way of sticking it to the rich. You know the guys with boats.

Sounds like a great idea :humpty:

Who here thinks they have a Right to pollute?

-spence

And I thought I was the trouble maker:rotf3:

You calling us boat owners out , Spence?

Now I think you're just being ridiculous.:p

I find it a bit hypocritical that you're gathering the troops and trying to get as many people as possible involved in going to tuna hearings. Then, come in here and try to say that the amount of pollutants that companies put into the air shouldn't be regulated.

Based on your own arguments, we don't need the Feds limiting our catch on Striped Bass and tuna. Commercial guys should be able to go out, gaff every fish they catch and bring them all to market - be it 20 Stripers or 8 80lb tuna. Or is it because the word tax is used in one situation and "limit" is used in the other? Either way, isn't it the crazy liberal government trying to keep money out of the hands of the working man? Be conservative if it relates to our hobbies, but waste at will when it concerns our wallets? My hobby is someone else's paycheck.

So which is it? When are you ok with the government getting involved?

Let me guess, the fish management is to prevent the species from going extinct - so that makes it acceptable. Well maybe the recently low YOY numbers are due to a natural cycle in the size of the bass population. Maybe the recent absence of forage is due to a natural cycle of where the forage migrates. (Sounds awfully similar to opponent's views on global warming.)

So where's the line?

Your way off base Johnny. Who said they shouldn't be limited? They are limited.

A tax and a limit are not even close to the same thing. How about they randomly pick a size fish and then tax you for anything over that limit?

Carbon credits are a scam. The same amount of pollution is going in the air , they are just stealing $$ and coming up with a new form af taxation.

We already have the EPA among others to regulate pollution. If you want to use strong scientific data to further tighten restrictions then have at it. Don't go about it in a BS way like the "carbon credit" scam.
Don't bitch about jobs going over seas and blame the economy on Bush when this is the sort thing that you defend. TIMING IS EVERYTHING

So it is because one regulation uses the word limit and the other uses the word tax then?

Taxes put on high-carbon output companies in Europe have shown that companies adjust business practices to lower their emissions. On the other hand, Cap-and-Trade programs are a huge scam. They are too complex and often can be easily exploited.

Not only are these companies contributing to emissions, they also contribute to our dependence on foreign oil. Corporations do not change their ways unless there is some incentive to do so (lowering their tax liability).

I agree "Timing is Everything." And it's about time this country actually takes steps to lower it's oil dependence. You're one who continually states that we're screwing over our children with the policies of today. Fuels consist of almost 1/4th of all US imports. The price of oil has a direct effect on just about every consumer good in this country, not to mention how much people drive, the vacations they go on, etc. If our dependence on oil isn't reduced, then it's our children that are going to be screwed by it. We already got a preview last year as to what can happen - people not being about to by oil to heat their homes, airfare going through the roof, the grocery bill going up 10-20%.

Even though I'm a proponent of drilling in Alaska, it won't solve the long term problem. It's also not financially viable unless oil is above $50/barrel, the price/barrel has to be even higher to warrant offshore drilling.

The point: our dependence on oil needs to be reduced. Also, the emissions put out by this countries biggest polluters needs to be reduced. Those two things combined will have lasting beneficial effects on this country - financially and economically. If taxing heavy polluters is the only way to create an incentive for them to change their ways, so be it.

It's a scam John.
Your buying into it. Regulate it the way they have been regulating it. Give companies an incentive to reduce pollution. Here's an idea, A TAX BREAK . Why is it your all for giving more to the government?
.

They've already been offered tax breaks for performing R&D on renewable and clean energy. Most states offer quite generous incentives for corporations to invest in solar and wind generation, with little effect.

You show me empirical evidence other than a gut opinion as to why a Carbon Tax is a scam and how even with reports of it being successful in Europe, it will have no effect here.... then I'll believe you.

You say that tax incentives have had little effect. There is plenty of empirical evidence to proof that wrong.

This is what will happen. I pollute X amount and the government charges me X amount.I could spend the money and fix it but since they are hell bent on alternate energy sources and running my coal fired plant out of town, I figure I'll just pass that amount on to Johnny's electric bill. Obama get's his and Johnny gets screwed again.
So.......When does Johnny figure out it's a scam?

That's perfectly fine by me. The more those dirty, polluting coal plants decide to forward the prices onto me, the more motivated I am going to be to put solar panels on my house. I have already told my girlfriend, that when we finally buy a house, it has to be cheap enough for us to afford the added additional costs of putting solar panels and solar water heating into place. At current energy prices and current solar technology, I will more than likely be looking at a 4-6 year break-even point. Then I start saving significant amounts of money - and that's not considering advances in technology (and the definite increase in energy prices) between now and then.

Companies that choose to continue on with how they have always done things will fail - automotive companies come time mind. It is only a matter of time before more stringent pollution limits are put onto companies like coal plants. Just like everything else in the world, the way we use energy is evolving past what was put in place during the Industrial Revolution. Coal is cheap now, but eventually if those companies don't learn from the automotive industry, they will see the same fate.

And I say "Let Them Fail."

But what about the poor shmuck that can't afford to switch over to solar. A little advise,don't buy too small a house. With todays technology your going to need one big ass roof.

Let's take the Brayton Point power plant as an example. The Government passes tighter environmental regulations, and instead of upgrading the plant to emit less methyl mercury, they just keep the plant going "as-is" and pay the fines which are next to nothing.

The costs are then never really passed on to the consumer in the form of higher energy prices.

It is passed onto my son via the quality of air he breathes and in the fish he eats.

Scam my ass, open your mind.

-spence

Then raise the fines and give them an grace period where they can reuse the fine $$ to improve the plant.

Actually the fines are paid by the consumer also.

I'm open to anything that works.
In the budget he is charging carbon credits which will raise the rates and then giving a large portion of that money to people that can't afford the higher cost. How's that going to help your son breath better?
Incentives work. I see it every day and I would be willing to bet you and everyone on here has mailed in a rebate on an Energy Star product or used the tax rebate to get a new, more efficient furnace for there home. See, it's working already.

Problem is the energy lobby and their "regulation is evil" proponents in the GOP do everything to keep penalties low.

There are no solutions I'm aware of that won't ultimately pass increased energy costs to the consumer, that much is simple. They key is that we're already paying the higher costs in terms of health and environmental impact.

What I like about the Carbon Credit idea is that it's tied to behavior. Yes, it's not perfect but neither is what we have now. Making my energy more expensive with the benefit of a cleaner environment might just be a net zero situation that's more sustainable.

-spence

That's my opinion on it as well. But, behavior will change either on the energy producer end or the user end. If because of the Carbon Credit a company decides it isn't going to change it's behavior and is going to forward the cost to the consumer, eventually the consumer will change their behavior and switch to renewable energy sources.

I refuse to accept the "Let's not do anything at all and *blank* (insert: corporations, the economy, consumers, lending companies, government) will fix itself" attitude that some people here feel will resolve all our problems.

This society has *reaction* as opposed to action attitude. What I mean is there is no foresight in this country. No one tries to avoid issues before they happen. People wait until the absolute worst case occurs and then want the government to respond and fix it right away. People only think about now and never about tomorrow.

Johnny, Who said don't do anything at all?

"Then raise the fines and give them an grace period where they can reuse the fine $$ to improve the plant. " this is what I said.

Using Carbon Credits as a form of taxation is a scam. That's what Obama's plan is. I think it's insane and will further hurt any chance at an economic recovery.

Unfortunately, issues don't exist until they happen. We are constantly warned about consequences due to new behaviour, and there is usually disagreement about what will happen. Hasty action usually leads to worse problems than predicted consequences. No one knows and only the most prescient can predict how things will actually shake out. It would, seemingly, be wonderful if we could invent a prediction machine that produced a 90% or better success rate. Meanwhile, passionate arguments by those certain of their knowledge abound. Hasty "action" is, at best, hit and miss, but it is usually more destructive than helpful. Against all intuition, the most efficient response to new behavior is to let the competing elements work through the arising problems. It's slower than doing something right away, but more correct in its outcome and will come to the best solution more quickly as it will avoid false solutions that slow the process down.

I agree with this in it's entirety. However, I think that most of what the Dems. are doing is not kneejerk, but a concerted effort to enlarge the government, redistribute money and move towards a America "they" feel is better for us.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said the 104-page budget outline as was "at long last . . . a statement of our national values."


Who's values? The social state of CA?

Ya. How's that working out for them on the left coast?

Yes, because only when we have a Marxist economy will the worker really be empowered!

You know, when you get below the rhetoric there's really very little difference between how the Republicans and Democrats run the country when applied to the global spectrum. While I think Ralph Nader is a bit of a super-cook, on this point I do agree.

-spence

where's the earthquake when you need one.