Want to pay $100 more per year in energy costs?

[IGBT]

it's only the start. the eco-KOOKS want punitive use tax on all energy. but isn't this what you guys voted for??

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ronstang

That is how Democrats operate. They create the need for more government. I just wish all the liberals who are actually smart would wake up and realize that the Democrats are all about government for government's sake, they don't care about anyone. We need a viable 3rd party who actually cares.

Like your hero & co were any better?

I wasn't a fan of Bush and disagreed with him because of his reckless spending and increasing the size of the government you twit. Now I am wondering why I even bothered to respond to the dumbest person here.

Then all of you loser Republicans stop feigning about Obama to magically reduce the Government and cut spending.

Do you remember 6th grade math and the law of exponents or more specifically exponential growth?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So stop flummoxing and admit these sorts of programs work. Even if there is no such thing as MM climate change, we'll create jobs, help to wean ourselves off foreign oil and eliminate dirty technology like coal-fired energy plants. Which are all admirable goals by themselves.

Why, of course. Pointing to a single success in a government program is a guarantee that this effort will also be a success as well and everyone should simply lay down and accept it, no questions asked.

Not only that, but my assertion is that 8 dollars a month isn't going to do crap to resolve the problems with energy and climate change, an assertion your attempted diversion into acid rain hasn't even begun to address.

You're right, it'll probably be ahead of it's scheduled benchmarks and only cost $1.60/month, considering the last cap and trade bill was 1/5 of the projected costs. So your assertion is crap, because we have a precedent here for a successful program and you've got ... what? A feeling and a shitty attitude?

:laugh:

 

[BarrySotero]

$100 is way too low. Plus there are all the other tax rapes the Obama/Dems are drooling over. After a few years of getting mugged like this $100 is about all anyone will have left.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So stop flummoxing and admit these sorts of programs work. Even if there is no such thing as MM climate change, we'll create jobs, help to wean ourselves off foreign oil and eliminate dirty technology like coal-fired energy plants. Which are all admirable goals by themselves.

Why, of course. Pointing to a single success in a government program is a guarantee that this effort will also be a success as well and everyone should simply lay down and accept it, no questions asked.

Not only that, but my assertion is that 8 dollars a month isn't going to do crap to resolve the problems with energy and climate change, an assertion your attempted diversion into acid rain hasn't even begun to address.

You're right, it'll probably be ahead of it's scheduled benchmarks and only cost $1.60/month, considering the last cap and trade bill was 1/5 of the projected costs. So your assertion is crap, because we have a precedent here for a successful program and you've got ... what? A feeling and a shitty attitude?

:laugh:

Yeah, you've shown that our government is so damn efficient. Everyone knows this, right?

You are trying to compare removing an known atmoshperic contaminant originating from one primary source (power plants) to fixing problems that are widely varied, along with fixing a problem that we arent really even sure why it's happening. Then you go on to imply that our streamlined and efficient GOV can do it well under the cost of 10 billion per year when we know that the investments required to address each individual problem ranges in the multi-trillions. Your comparison doesn't mean crap in this case because there is no comparison, except maybe in your own head, which obviously hasn't bothered to do the math or think this the least bit through. But keep imagining that your bit of cherry-picking has any merit whatsoever.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So stop flummoxing and admit these sorts of programs work. Even if there is no such thing as MM climate change, we'll create jobs, help to wean ourselves off foreign oil and eliminate dirty technology like coal-fired energy plants. Which are all admirable goals by themselves.

Why, of course. Pointing to a single success in a government program is a guarantee that this effort will also be a success as well and everyone should simply lay down and accept it, no questions asked.

Not only that, but my assertion is that 8 dollars a month isn't going to do crap to resolve the problems with energy and climate change, an assertion your attempted diversion into acid rain hasn't even begun to address.

You're right, it'll probably be ahead of it's scheduled benchmarks and only cost $1.60/month, considering the last cap and trade bill was 1/5 of the projected costs. So your assertion is crap, because we have a precedent here for a successful program and you've got ... what? A feeling and a shitty attitude?

:laugh:

If clean energy is the goal $1.60/month per user won't cover a damn thing.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
$100 is way too low. Plus there are all the other tax rapes the Obama/Dems are drooling over. After a few years of getting mugged like this $100 is about all anyone will have left.

<Quimby> Er, um, yes, there is a, um, $100 leftover money tax. </Quimby>