Obama chooses "Energy Czar"

[SteamWake]

More Clintonistas in the cabinet.

Former Clinton EPA cabinet minister Carol Browner has been chosen as Obama's Energy Czar.


meaning that the subsidies required to put renewables within the reach of consumers will have to be larger


To translate for you 'higher taxes on your fuel costs'. In fact it has been discussed to raise taxes on US fuel costs to the point they rival that in the Eu.

Yea that will stimulate the economy?! :-?

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily19.html

[Digital_Trucker]

Yea that will stimulate the economy?! :-?

Yep, stimulate it even further into the toilet than it is already.:damn:

[Tchocky]

To translate for you 'higher taxes on your fuel costs'. In fact it has been discussed to raise taxes on US fuel costs to the point they rival that in the Eu.

Yea that will stimulate the economy?! :-?

Possible.

Tax rises on gasoline, combined with tax breaks for alternative fuels, could move many consumers away from using gasoline.
This would make the US economy less sensitive to changes in gasoline price, delinking economic growth from the upward trend in oil prices. You wouldn't have as many people bringing SUV's into church to pray for oil prices to go down.

Doesn't matter, oil grows on trees anyway.

[AVGWarhawk]

To translate for you 'higher taxes on your fuel costs'. In fact it has been discussed to raise taxes on US fuel costs to the point they rival that in the Eu.

Yea that will stimulate the economy?! :-?
Possible.

Tax rises on gasoline, combined with tax breaks for alternative fuels, could move many consumers away from using gasoline.
This would make the US economy less sensitive to changes in gasoline price, delinking economic growth from the upward trend in oil prices. You wouldn't have as many people bringing SUV's into church to pray for oil prices to go down.

Doesn't matter, oil grows on trees anyway.

Raising taxes has never stimulated anything other than anger. As per status quo, raise taxes on all the vices of America...gas, tobacco, alcohol. It is the typical course of action and the coming years will be no different. OPEC is already prepared to create a fair market value for oil at $80.00/barrel. That translates to about $3.00/gallon here in the US. Tax breaks on alternative fuels? Realistically, the hybrid vehicle sister to the standard vehicle does not do much better in mileage yet the consumer is paying close to $10,000.00 more for the hybrid. They can keep the hybrid at the dealer. The automakers need to stop the hysteria of global warming and saving gas thus providing an out to charge $10000.00 more than the standard gas engine sister vehicle. Sell the frigging things at a price that is reasonable and affordable. The automakers could give two craps about the environment as evident with Ford, GM, Chrysler line up of GREEN CARS.:roll: They all suck.

[Tchocky]

Raising taxes has never stimulated anything other than anger. Of course, the natural path towards stimulaing an economy is to lower taxes.
But, if lowering taxes on a commodity only increases your economy's vulnerability to certain price rises in that commodity, then it is not a wise choice.
I'm talking about a reorientation of the economic model so that oil price rises do not affect it in such a severe way.
Taxes are instruments of incentivising behaviour as well as revenue collection. It's why I pay a lower rate of tax on waste, because I recycle. Same goes for cars.
I never said that tax rises on gasoline alone would stimulate the economy.
OPEC is already prepared to create a fair market value for oil at $80.00/barrel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7786456.stm
OPEC will alter output to suit themselves, the same way any cartel does.

Tax breaks on alternative fuels? Realistically, the hybrid vehicle sister to the standard vehicle does not do much better in mileage yet the consumer is paying close to $10,000.00 more for the hybrid. They can keep the hybrid at the dealer. Hybrid ain't the only alternative to petrol. Obviously, manufacturers will have to be convinced to produce these cars, the prospect of them being more financially attractive to the consumer may well do this.
The automakers need to stop the hysteria of global warming and saving gas Global warming is indeed pure rubbish. Saving gas? pfft. go back to college, hippies.
I mean, we can burn anything we want, right?
And it will never stop coming out of the ground, right?
The arctic will freeze up again,
right? (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/has-the-arctic-melt-passed-the-point-of-no-return-1128197.html)

Sell the frigging things at a price that is reasonable and affordable. So you'd be against tax breaks on these vehicles...why?

[AVGWarhawk]

1. hysteria is being created with global warming. I never said it was not happening. Your sarcastic response affirms that you believe I do not think global warming is real. I only stated hysteria is being created and people are profiting from the hysteria, ie Al Gore, automakers selling hybrids at a higher price than the sister vehicle with a gas burner. Look, my friend looked at a hybrid and the sister vehicle. The hybrid is $10000.00 more. It really does not do any better than the gas burner. So why pay the additional monies? There is no incentive. If the automakers gave a crap, the two vehicles would be priced the same. So, SAVE THE PLANET! IT IS UP TO YOU...and this vehicle will help you do it for only $10000.00 more. Again, no incentive to buy it and the tax breaks are nice but do not offset the out of pocket costs.

2. I never said I was against tax breaks for these vehicles. Hell, I get tax breaks for installing efficient appliances and heating systems. However, I do not pay additional monies because the appliances will be GREENER. The appliances are efficient from the word go and price in the same ball park as other appliance makers. The tax breaks are not that great anyway and are about last on the list of incentives to make the purchase.

3. Hybrid are one part of alternative fuel saving. Electric....suck. The GM Volt coming out...looser from the word go. Natural gas...might have something here. Using corn...not quite as clean as we are led to believe. Let's face it, better fuel efficient vehicles such as the Prius are the way to go. Unfortunate, the world of the large SUV/van are not going away. People need the larger vehicles for large familes. I had to laugh when Congress went after Ford over their F150 pick up truck. What, Joe the construction guy is to carry his tools and materials on his back?


Also, look for arguments against the global warming theory:

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html

[Digital_Trucker]

Besides that, in order to make any kind of difference, you've got to kill all the cows and pigs.

[AVGWarhawk]

Besides that, in order to make any kind of difference, you've got to kill all the cows and pigs.

Yeah, and have clean coal technology which basically means there are scubbers in the stacks. :roll:

[August]

Besides that, in order to make any kind of difference, you've got to kill all the cows and pigs.


And get rid about about half the worlds human population...

[SteamWake]

On a related note...

N.Y. Govenor readies to tax... well... everything...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468305,00.html

[AVGWarhawk]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Looooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeee Neeeew Yooorrrkkk! All I can say is welcome to the club NY! Here in MD we had our taxes raised across the board and then the tax was taxed. We are still 2 billion in the hole. Great work Martin O' Malley:down::shifty:

[goldorak]

On a related note...

N.Y. Govenor readies to tax... well... everything...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468305,00.html

Really guys, for once you should copy the european tax model, VAT on goods and services and do away with the sales taxes.
One tax rate at lets say 12% (or 10%, etc...), the same across all the usa and applicable to all goods and services (even internet services and downloadable goods such as software, music etc...).
Pretty simple no ? You buy a good,you know the price has already the VAT.

[AVGWarhawk]

On a related note...

N.Y. Govenor readies to tax... well... everything...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468305,00.html
Really guys, for once you should copy the european tax model, VAT on goods and services and do away with the sales taxes.
One tax rate at lets say 12% (or 10%, etc...), the same across all the usa and applicable to all goods and services (even internet services and downloadable goods such as software, music etc...).
Pretty simple no ? You buy a good,you know the price has already the VAT.

The state of Delaware here in America kind of runs it that way. They are not in debt either.

[goldorak]

The state of Delaware here in America kind of runs it that way. They are not in debt either.

Why isn't this model exported to the other states ?
Can the federal government impose a nationwide VAT (value added tax) and at the same time do away with the sales tax.

[SteamWake]

The state of Delaware here in America kind of runs it that way. They are not in debt either.

Why isn't this model exported to the other states ?
Can the federal government impose a nationwide VAT (value added tax) and at the same time do away with the sales tax.

Taxes never get repealed they just get moved around and re-named.

[MothBalls]

Really guys, for once you should copy the european tax model, VAT on goods and services and do away with the sales taxes.

I'm all for flat taxes, either VAT or GST, flat income, etc. I think the only reason we don't have a flat tax is people will finally figure out more than 50% of our wages actually pay taxes in one form or another, if not more.

Some of our states [California for example] have larger economies then many countries do. There's also multiple levels of Government. We have Federal, State, County, and City levels of government and each taxes different areas that make sense for the local municipality. You would end up having each agency compete for monies from a general fund and that would be chaos.

[sunvalleyslim]

Taxes never get repealed they just get moved around and re-named.[/quote]

Amen Brother................:down: :down: :down: :down:

[goldorak]

I'm all for flat taxes, either VAT or GST, flat income, etc. I think the only reason we don't have a flat tax is people will finally figure out more than 50% of our wages actually pay taxes in one form or another, if not more.

Some of our states [California for example] have larger economies then many countries do. There's also multiple levels of Government. We have Federal, State, County, and City levels of government and each taxes different areas that make sense for the local municipality. You would end up having each agency compete for monies from a general fund and that would be chaos.

You're right in the sense that economical disparity between the 50 states doesn't bode well for a nationwide unique VAT tax rate. Even in europe, each country imposes a different VAT tax rate. On the other hand why can't the 50 states just ditch sales taxes altogether and use VAT, each state deciding only the specific tax rate to be applied within its border ?
For instance in europe we have a mechanism wereby even if a buy a service or a product (through e-commerce) in a country different from the country of residence, I still get charged local VAT on my purchase automatically (obviously I don't get charged with the VAT from the country I'm purchasing from).
Why can't the united states 50 states adopt such a clear mechanism to interstate commerce ? Ditch the sales tax and the use (usage) tax.

[PeriscopeDepth]

No sales tax here in Oregon. No income tax to the north of us in Washington.

PD

[Digital_Trucker]

Why can't the united states 50 states adopt such a clear mechanism to interstate commerce ? Ditch the sales tax and the use (usage) tax.
Because that would make way too much sense:Dand getting 50 states to agree on anything would be damn near impossible.

[Aramike]

Personally, with taxes, I believe the key problem is that the Federal Government has outgrown the states on its draw from the citizens. A perfect example of wasteful excess is the Feds using matching transportation dollars to con states into enacting laws. Why should money from, say, Montana go to say, my home state of Wisconsin as a ploy to force the drinking age to 21?

And that's just one example.

What you end up is everyone being taxed to death with that money being used as a form of federal bribery.

Furthermore, in even a MORE wasteful sense, the whole concept of Federal Matching Funds is simply an invitation to excess. Time and time again, you have situations where local lawmakers will spend money JUST to get the feds to match. They use "logic" such as, "we need to build this $10mil road or we lose $10mil in federal money". Well, if you don't built the often unneccessary road not only do you save $10mil locally, but you save it nationally as well.

The very system itself encourages wasteful spending.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Personally, with taxes, I believe the key problem is that the Federal Government has outgrown the states on its draw from the citizens. A perfect example of wasteful excess is the Feds using matching transportation dollars to con states into enacting laws. Why should money from, say, Montana go to say, my home state of Wisconsin as a ploy to force the drinking age to 21?

And that's just one example.

What you end up is everyone being taxed to death with that money being used as a form of federal bribery.

Furthermore, in even a MORE wasteful sense, the whole concept of Federal Matching Funds is simply an invitation to excess. Time and time again, you have situations where local lawmakers will spend money JUST to get the feds to match. They use "logic" such as, "we need to build this $10mil road or we lose $10mil in federal money". Well, if you don't built the often unneccessary road not only do you save $10mil locally, but you save it nationally as well.

The very system itself encourages wasteful spending.


Good points, all. I've been in an environment where taxpayer dollars are wasted on the most frivolous things you can possibly imagine due to lack of accountability, but my main beef with Federal tax power, spending, and the resultant clusterfrack is the fact that the Fed was never supposed to have that authority in the first place.

More than anything, the Constitution is a limitation on Government. At the very outset, it defines the inalienable right that we are born with. It does not give us those rights, we already have them. What it really does is forbid the Government from infringing upon them in various ways.

One of the most important, and overlooked Amendments is the 10th, which in a nutshell, says "If we forgot anything, you can't do that either." Most Federal legislation, taxes, spending, and policy are unconstitutional by this Amendment. The powers given to the Fed were intentionally restricted to a considerable degree on purpose. Similarly, the process of granting powers to the Federal Government (Amendment) was intentionally made very, very difficult for a reason.

Anymore, the Congress barely even bothers justifying the Constitutionality of its' actions. They have buried the document under enough legal code and "interpretation" and Supreme Court rulings that it really is meaningless outside of a public that is dimly aware of what rights they are supposed to have and a media that occassionally brings such matters to our attention.

Imo, the big issue isn't whether the Government spends our tax dollars well. I don't care if the greatest political minds ever to grace the planet suddenly materialized and won every office and came up with perfect legislation that eliminated every source of unhappiness on the planet. Even that would only last for one generation, and the end result is the mockery of a government "By the People" that we have today. That we've had for the better part of a century, now, and arguably longer than that.

The Founders knew this, whether through noble wisdom or the simple desire to be free, and they succeeded in drafting a document that took many major crises and almost two centuries to erode (1 1/2, in the case of FDR's presidency)



Anymore, the process is almost too far gone to stop. The Government now owns and controls our wealth, our land, even our rights.....all of them. Even the most basic of rights really don't exsist anymore.
Own property? No you don't. The government can whisk it away before you can say "Tax Evasion".
Free to express yourself? No you aren't. The list of Government powers that preclude you from doing so would go on for pages, from the FCC to the Dept. of Homeland Security.
Free to vote? Not in a way that usually matters. What really matters is what district you're in, and you have no control over that.

Imo, the only saving grace this country really has left, is the fierce competition between various oligarchies. That is because of the genius of the founders. The U.S. was never intended to be anything else. States were supposed to compete with each other and co-operate only loosely. That way, we can choose which system of government we like most (well, from an original 13 flavors, now 50)
States that compete poorly will not fare well. People will leave them. But in a Federal system, you don't get that choice, and the extent to which that is true grows with each new session of congress.

In the end, inefficiency and waste the inevitable products of a choiceless system. With little incentive beyond the occasional streak of humanity or keeping up appearances to fool the public, there is no reason to perform well. The Government even takes this monopolistic system into the private sector, discouraging competition and allowing the spectacular failure of major industries like, oh...say, banks, automakers, airlines, energy companies, agriculture, transportation, etc etc to continue. Don't take my word for it, though. Go try to start a business. See what it costs you in licensures, time, taxes and effort. I'm sure that there are small business owners here who can attest to the hoops they had to jump through to establish themselves. (Internet businesses excluded, in most cases, for obvious reasons)

And now we're to have an energy Czar!? At what point, exactly, did the Federal government amend the Constitution to allow for such a power or position? Even one single commission or report or post-it note regarding energy policy is strictly prohibited by the fact that it was not granted by the Constitution.
All Constitutional considerations aside, can anyone think of a single Federal Department that doesn't fail miserably in its' asigned function? And by that I don't mean "Once I was xxxxx and xxxx program helped me"-type stories, I mean hard data confirming that such programs provided measurable benefit in proportion to their cost.

How short our memories are. We once had regulated energy, telecommunications, transportation. Virtually nationalized industries, and where did those ever get us?
The current "energy crisis" if it can be called that, is due more to Federal restriction in various forms on new sources of energy than by scarcity of resources. Remember the ridiculous gas prices that were so prevalent earlier this year? All it took was the consideration of allowing domestic drilling in prohibited areas and the prices began to drop. Competition is that powerful and effective. What preceded was nearly a century of increasing Federal regulation that only ever made gas prices rise. Thank God that people care more about their money than they do about the environment, or we might not have seen the greatest (percentage.....and probably real) drop in gas prices we have ever seen. At least we still have that much power.

Are we going to sit idly by and watch as our industries are nationalized "for our own good"? We already know where that path leads. We know where even the limited practice of it has led us thus far.
Write, call, or meet your legislators. Excercise your right to vote, limited though it may be. Tell them that they do not know what is best for us. Only we know what is best for us, and we should have the freedom to choose.