Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hear that, working people? Stop driving to and from work.
Yet another liberal leftist demonstrating concern for the poor and working people of this state. Well, you got yours. So why not take it away from everyone else?
Welcome to the world of the liberal left, where anyone who cannot meet their standards end up their slaves.
Beautiful. Really.
Tell me, how do you know I'm a 'leftist?' Because, based on what I said, I didn't even attempt t justify the tax. All I said is that if you don't like, you do something about it. Is that a liberal quality? Because if it is, everyone should be liberal, because by process of elimination, conservatives would say to accept your fate and do nothing about it? Is that how it is?
And the answer to that is no, that's not how it is. And because apparently I need to be stupidly specific in order to avoid criticism based on no actual in depth thought, I'll say how I feel about the tax: it's stupid. If government actually gave a crap about the environment, they'd offer the same generous benefits to alternative energy companies as they do to oil, but they don't. The tax is the easy way for them to feel like they've done something helpful when all traces of logic suggest that they haven't.
And as for that last bit about, not meeting standards and being slave... yeah, where did you get that. I advocate for fighting against oil industry, and basically anything you dislike and suddenly I'm making people my slaves? I feel as though you read the first sentence about not buying gas, and that's as far as you got. Congratulations though; you really proved a great point!
This is what Californians get for having elected a Republican governor.
From your article:
"This time they can blame Sacramento and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for passing a bill requiring California to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020."
It astonishes me that pols will constantly say we will reduce emissions 20 years down the road to less than those 10 years past. It won't happen, the pols know it won't happen so why do they do it?
It still means the poor and working people of this state will pay more for gas. Where will that money come from? Raises in their wages and salaries? Or food?
Enough of these tax increases, driven by the AGW agenda. Maybe if the legislators paid for their own cars and their own gas out of their own pockets instead of leeching of us taxpayers, this kind of idiocy would cease.
You do realize that gas tax revenues fall short of actually funding the roads they are supposed to fund right? As a result, the state has to divert funds from elsewhere in the budget to maintain the roads. The ideal solution would be a toll based on demand determined by the time of day (traffic), but the gas tax is the next best thing, albeit an unequal charge.
The stupidity of that comment is that the article notes that, "This time they can blame Sacramento and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for passing a bill requiring California to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020."
The people who pay you to make these trolls should really do their research first. Arnie was a Republican.
Tell me, how do you know I'm a 'leftist?' Because, based on what I said, I didn't even attempt t justify the tax. All I said is that if you don't like, you do something about it. Is that a liberal quality? Because if it is, everyone should be liberal, because by process of elimination, conservatives would say to accept your fate and do nothing about it? Is that how it is?
And the answer to that is no, that's not how it is. And because apparently I need to be stupidly specific in order to avoid criticism based on no actual in depth thought, I'll say how I feel about the tax: it's stupid. If government actually gave a crap about the environment, they'd offer the same generous benefits to alternative energy companies as they do to oil, but they don't. The tax is the easy way for them to feel like they've done something helpful when all traces of logic suggest that they haven't.
There are tons of government give always for alternative energy companies. Do you have the numbers that shows where one gets more than the other? Buy a Prius get a tax credit. Buy a Sonic and no tax credit.
If you have these numbers I'd like to see them.
Quote:
And as for that last bit about, not meeting standards and being slave... yeah, where did you get that. I advocate for fighting against oil industry, and basically anything you dislike and suddenly I'm making people my slaves? I feel as though you read the first sentence about not buying gas, and that's as far as you got. Congratulations though; you really proved a great point!
Hurting the lower classes is not the way to go about this.
There are tons of government give always for alternative energy companies. Do you have the numbers that shows where one gets more than the other? Buy a Prius get a tax credit. Buy a Sonic and no tax credit.
If you have these numbers I'd like to see them.
Government subsidies of oil range from 10-50 billion annually, while solar energy racks up 5-10 billions a year. Ethanol can be a bit trickier to put a number to. It's a corn byproduct which gets plenty of little perks from the government. However, it's not all for good. Since plenty of the subsidized funds go just to big farming industries like Monsanto, which is possibly the most corrupt corporation currently in existence, it's not like those subsidies are really for the greater good. Although I believe ethanol only receives about 6 Billions a year.
I also really wasn't factoring tax breaks to individuals. That doesn't really matter to me. Corporations don't deserve tax breaks as it is, let along corporations that are causing a long list of problems around the world.
Quote:
Hurting the lower classes is not the way to go about this.
Reading comprehension would dictate that what you said is exactly what I said, and you are using it against me...
This is a good idea. California's car culture is unsustainable. This will help them invest in transit and better forms of transportation (hopefully more bike lanes, even though California has lots of cyclists).
Government subsidies of oil range from 10-50 billion annually, while solar energy racks up 5-10 billions a year. Ethanol can be a bit trickier to put a number to. It's a corn byproduct which gets plenty of little perks from the government. However, it's not all for good. Since plenty of the subsidized funds go just to big farming industries like Monsanto, which is possibly the most corrupt corporation currently in existence, it's not like those subsidies are really for the greater good. Although I believe ethanol only receives about 6 Billions a year.
Ethanol subsidies, tax breaks etc should end. Period. Nothing. So using your numbers and considering the scale of production it would seem solar energy is doing pretty well.
Quote:
I also really wasn't factoring tax breaks to individuals. That doesn't really matter to me. Corporations don't deserve tax breaks as it is, let along corporations that are causing a long list of problems around the world.
I agree that a huge number of them should end.
Quote:
Reading comprehension would dictate that what you said is exactly what I said, and you are using it against me...
Not really. The lower classes shouldn't have to fight off the controlling classes to survive.
Ethanol subsidies, tax breaks etc should end. Period. Nothing. So using your numbers and considering the scale of production it would seem solar energy is doing pretty well.
I agree that a huge number of them should end.
Corporations don't deserve subsidies of any kind. They're corporations. They need to learn to handle them selves, and if they can't tough. Small businesses don't get bailed when something goes wrong, but big business does? That's wrong.
Quote:
Not really. The lower classes shouldn't have to fight off the controlling classes to survive.
This is what I originally wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
And as for that last bit about, not meeting standards and being slave... yeah, where did you get that. I advocate for fighting against oil industry, and basically anything you dislike and suddenly I'm making people my slaves? I feel as though you read the first sentence about not buying gas, and that's as far as you got. Congratulations though; you really proved a great point!
Where in that do I suggest they have to fight off a ruling class? No, they shouldn't have to do this. But you generally can't trust elite groups, and they're gonna do everything they can to get into positions of power and when they overstep their bounds, we all have the right and, in my opinion, the responsibility to fight them. If you'd rather live in a world where government and corporate elitist can be trusted, fine, but that world does not exist. Not yet anyway.
Now, if you're done grasping for straws, I'd like you to really ponder how our conversation has panned out and really ask yourself if what you originally said about me actually made any sense. I don't advise jumping to conclusions to quickly, for future reference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
