Why don’t they just use my social security tax for this? I’m never gonna use it.

mcptek on September 27, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Don’t worry, they’ve already spent your social security money along with mine and everyone else’s. Why do you think they need a global warming tax ?

Maxx on September 27, 2007 at 10:43 PM

When Perot was running for President his group had a meeting in our area. Dingell came to speak to the crowd of mostly seniors. The Q & A got ugly. One woman complained about a legal immigrant senior she knew who came into the US and immediately got an SSI check (SSI = Supplementary Security Income for aged, blind or disabled who never paid into Social Security). One senior said he paid over $200,000 into social security and demanded to know was his money now?

Dingell lost it and lambasted the audience that Social Security was never meant as a retirement income. He caused a near riot. Dingell is not a softie, and has no trouble inflicting pain that he will never feel with his gigantic Congressional income, Health benefits and pension to come. I got to see the inner Dingell that night and I will never forget it. He had to beat those elderly punks into line

Nah just kidding. It’s times like these that I hate being middle class. I make too much to get any of Uncle Sam’s money, but not enough to set up tax shelters to “protect” my income. Oh well such as life. Just tell me who to make the check out too.

I just wish someone would come along and tell me how to parlay $1,000 into a little under $10,000 in less than a year.

And I don’t want to hear or read any smarta$$ remarks like ‘We have term limits; it’s called voting’ either.

Obviously voting doesn’t work for term limits when someone, as Dingell has done, can stay in elected office for 52 years.

Isn’t it odd that Congress has an ever closer single-digit approval rating yet so many of the same charlatans continue to be re-elected.

It’s time for a national referendum on term limits.

Unfortunately, this isn’t even close to where the Democrats are headed in all this tax talk. They are gonna add ‘em all up and the middle class will be riding the bus everywhere assuming there is enough take home pay left in our checks for bus fare.

Ordinary1 on September 28, 2007 at 9:49 AM

I agree with you about the Democrats. However, if the Democrats are serious about this issue, then they should be willing to negotiate. Negotiation is what distinguishs politics from religion.

If the debate is over then why are there 17,100 scientists who signed an afidavit stating that they did not agree with that premise. Their names are listed here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Can you imagine what Massachussets would be like without the Kennedy stranglehold? West Virginia without that KKK moron?

Career politicians turn into a new aristocracy. America was never meant to have a permanent ruling class.

What I am suggesting is that we do what Reagan did in 1986: negotiate with the Democrats to reform the tax system. The Wikipedia article does not mention that this 1986 act was intended to be revenue neutral–neither cutting nor raising government revenue, which of course equals the total amount of taxes paid.

thuja on September 28, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Unfortunately, this isn’t even close to where the Democrats are headed in all this tax talk. They are gonna add ‘em all up and the middle class will be riding the bus everywhere assuming there is enough take home pay left in our checks for bus fare.

So your saying that even though man-made global warming is a fraud… it still might be a good idea to base our taxed on that fraud…. so they can make our tax system better and so we should just trust them because after all they are only trying to help us.

You will do well … at least for a little while, in the brave new world.

Maxx on September 28, 2007 at 9:30 AM

What I am suggesting is that we do what Reagan did in 1986: negotiate with the Democrats to reform the tax system. The Wikipedia article does not mention that this 1986 act was intended to be revenue neutral–neither cutting nor raising government revenue, which of course equals the total amount of taxes paid.

Rather than condemn Dingell, let’s think a little outside the box. Dingell’s plan has merit if combined with a revenue neutral reduction in the income tax. This would be an excellent first step in replacing the income tax with a consumption tax.

And for those that don’t get it: a consumption tax means a tax rate of zero on capital gains and dividends.

Both economically and ecologically a consumption tax makes sense. I know most of you don’t care about the ecology, but the economic part of it should make you happy.

thuja on September 28, 2007 at 8:21 AM

So your saying that even though man-made global warming is a fraud… it still might be a good idea to base our taxed on that fraud…. so they can make our tax system better and so we should just trust them because after all they are only trying to help us.

You will do well … at least for a little while, in the brave new world.

And for those that don’t get it: a consumption tax means a tax rate of zero on capital gains and dividends.

thuja on September 28, 2007 at 8:21 AM

What makes you think that? History suggests a consumption tax will mean an added tax, rather than a reduction in anything. That’s why it won’t fly.

After several years of curious observation, I am… sad to say… a believer.

And for those that don’t get it: a consumption tax means a tax rate of zero on capital gains and dividends.

Both economically and ecologically a consumption tax makes sense. I know most of you don’t care about the ecology, but the economic part of it should make you happy.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

- Ronald Reagan

If Ronaldus had said “Democrats” instead of government”, he’d go down in history as a seer.

Dingell’s state has the highest unemployment and people are leaving in droves.
Ordinary1 on September 28, 2007 at 12:33 AM

His state is home to the auto industry which makes his plan all the loonier.

To avoid this nightmare scenario I would gladly accept oppressive and outlandish tax increases paid to loving, understanding and wise people who stash bribe money in deep freezes, engage in fellatio in the oval office, accept stolen campaign money and whose answer to global terrorism is total denial and obsequity.

Oops, sorry. I was reading from the wrong script. Oh you secular sinners, ’tis getting warmer, much warmer– hotter even than Dan Rather’s neck. Coastal cities flooded, Bush-created hurricanes increasing exponentially…palm trees in Anchorage. We can only atone by more taxing and spending.

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

Can anybody be so dumb as a Democratic Politician?

What really scares me is some cracker legislator will propose actually trying to REVERSE global warming, and really foul the earth up.

I hope some Senator and/or Congressman gets a draft amendment ready to kill just such a proposition, stating there must be baseline measurements agreed by the scientific community, and controls placed on implementation in case the proposed “actions” either don’t work or “work too well.” Since the science on cause and effect is so well “understood,” this will be a poison pill to any global warming legislation.

This may come as a shock to most of you, but I have found a tax that I would like to increase!
I’ll give you a moment to let that sink in…
Bryan at Hot Air, as well as most all of the commentors agree.
I also agree… except for o…