“Well Otto, the so called bank stabilization occured when? When TARP was passed, under Bush. Obama passed no legislation stabilizing banks.”

……….True but Geithner, Summers and Bernanke are “managing” the bank stabilization program (which is any case is just one part of a huge jigsaw) and doing a far better job of it than Paulson was who was somewhat erratic and made some awful decisions along the way and whose cred was in tatters when Bush left office……not that I want to diss Paulson too much because he did a great job in uncharted waters despite the fact most Republicans had turned on him…..the financial system didn’t really emerge from the woods until about late May……and btw the TARP bill was passed in the teeth of fierce resistance from Republicans and with the support of democrats.

” Wind and solar power generation is a joke. It cannot supply demand. ”

………Of course it can’t on its own but then no one is proposing it does……it’s part of a menu of power sources……..my personal view stated above is that ultimately this country is going to have to go nuclear……there are political and economic obstacles to that as again I pointed out

…….On the broader issue of my original list……you can pick pepper out of fly poop but at the end of the day I think this is a valid list of the president’s strategic priorities and where he is on them…….anyone who doesn’t think the financial system and broad economy(Obama’s top priorities) aren’t in infinitely better shape than they were in mid January has his head up his backside……..when the economy is in full recover mode in the late summer of 2010 in the run up to the mid terms I’m going to enjoy all those ad clips of Republicans arguing and voting against the recovery act and hoping it fails!!

Again, I see where the confusion crept in. You’re right, Mid, I could have been clearer.

Not to make excuses, but as you know we have a couple “energy” threads going at the same time. It must be on the other thread that I have made it clear several times that when it comes to either a straight carbon tax or a Cap & Trade scheme, my opposition is to both.

Within this framework of being opposed to both, I’m more opposed to Cap and Trade.

(*Still opposed to BOTH proposals… but would rather a straight carbon tax if my only two choices were one or the other.)

Are we perfectly 100% clear for now and forever…??? (*SMILE*)

“…whether taxes have a limited purpose (provide revenue to the government) or can and should be used as a tool to help meet specific goals and objectives. Tobacco taxes are used for purposes related to stop smoking campaigns and heath programs.”

Philosophically… I’m opposed to using the tax code for social engineering. In short, my answer is “no,” the purpose of taxing your own people is to gain necessary revenue to run government – the less government the better in my view.

“Tariffs (a form of tax) are used to affect economic health by controlling imports, etc. Are these legitimate purposes and legitimate taxes?”

Tariffs fall into a separate category – thus the separate term “tariff.” (*WINK*) Tariffs are a national security tool as much as (and perhaps more than) a revenue generator.

“…gas taxes…”

Again… if limited to the original purpose… gas taxes are a fee for usage – a dedicated tax. This strikes me as reasonable.

BILL

I don’t necessarily believe (in fact I don’t have an opinion really) that C&T is necessary. The question posed (by you) was an either or. (actually it was stated as yea or nay)

10 barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 4:16 pm Well folks…??? Who’s in favor of a carbon tax and who’s opposed….Just a simple “yea” or “nay.”

But I read it as an “either” “or”, so if I had to choose I would choose C&T.

To me it begs the larger question of whether taxes have a limited purpose (provide revenue to the government) or can and should be used as a tool to help meet specific goals and objectives. Tobacco taxes are used for purposes related to stop smoking campaigns and heath programs. Tariffs (a form of tax) are used to affect economic health by controlling imports, etc. Are these legitimate purposes and legitimate taxes? I left off gas taxes because ostensibly they are used for tranportation purposes and consequently have some legitimacy.

Obama has made no change in handling either war. First complaining about Predator strikes, and now using them more than Bush. Complains about a troop surge in Iraq, now using the same tactic in Afghan. Only signifcant change now than under Bush, no media generated body count in Afghan. No constant count, no faces of the fallen on the 6 oclock news. Someone deserves the famous Otto handle of HYPOCRITE, unfortunately for Otto no handy Rep to hang it on.

And to those who would tax carbon, in all its forms, are taxing heavist the working class. Not the rich or wealthy, who will still drive the power cars and jets, but the guys driving to work every day and heating their homes in the winter.
And for what. Some myth of climat change, no increase in so called temperature for 10 years and you guys still have sweaty palms. It would be alot simpler if you people would grow a set.

Wind and solar power generation is a joke. It cannot supply demand. This may sound difficult to believe but the wind does not blow all the time. What then? The base stat of a wind farm is less than 40%. Meaning if rated at 100 megawatts, the wind farm will only produce this power less than 40% of the time. Because the wind is not blowing, or not blowing strong enough, or blowing too hard, or as in the case of the UpperMidwest too cold. Guess what determines how a coal plant operates, none of the above. They produce the same power 95% of the time, excluding maintenance and trouble with the boilers. No comparison.
If not coal, it better be nukes, either way nothing will happen if the libs tax carbon.

“A carbon tax could be revenue-neutral.”

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

A carbon tax would be a TAX. Period.

And btw… WHY in heaven’s name would I want a “revenue-neutral” tax? WHEN and IF I support taxes I expect these taxes to lead to a GAIN in government revenue.

(*HEADACHE*)

Sorry, Ken… nice try though! (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)

Re: Midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm (#56) –

“I recognize that C&T amounts to a pass along tax.”

I’m sure you do.

“Remember I am not anti tax; I am anti-unequal tax (like the Earned Income Credit hogwash). I am willing to pay taxes as long as it goes to necessary things and if everyone else is paying for the necessary things.”

We’re simpatico! At least as far as the above paragraph is concerned. Where we part ways is your apparent belief that C&T is necessary. I don’t. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s desirable.

Re: Midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:56 pm (#57) –

“Because of the environmental, safety, and security concerns, I would support a Department of Nuclear Power Generation (Ok, let’s say its the DOE) if you would agree that you and I and everyone else would have to pay for at least the startup costs and maybe then some.”

(*HANDSHAKE*) Deal!

“…power generation is not an “inherently governmental” (that’s a real term by the way from the Federal Acquisition Regulation) function and so, after a certain early point I would want the function to be privatized.”

(*HANDSHAKE*) Done!

See, Mid… I knew between us you and I could save the world!

(*WHISTLING THE THEME FROM “THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY” AS I HEAD TO MY BAR TO POUR MYSELF A FINE SINGLE MALT SCOTCH*)

BILL

Because of the environmental, safety, and security concerns, I would support a Department of Nuclear Power Generation (Ok, let’s say its the DOE) if you would agree that you and I and everyone else would have to pay for at least the startup costs and maybe then some. If you do not want to be taxed, then you can simply send in a check for your share but you have to pay your share because I’m not doing it. Second condition – power generation is not an “inherently governmental” (that’s a real term by the way from the Federal Acquisition Regulation) function and so, after a certain early point I would want the function to be privatized.

A carbon tax could be revenue-neutral. In other words, tax carbon and reduce taxes by an equivalent amount on something else (income, perhaps). Perhaps that would bring you around?

……you’re about as intellectually consistent as Donald Duck

If necessary I’d simply make nuclear power generation a direct governmental function – a governmental agency. A nuclear plant would be like a military base – it would be government property, government owned, government run. It would sell energy to the utilities.

Basically I’m open to anything other than new taxes. We have ENOUGH taxes.

BILL