Green Energy News. - Page 3

Well then I'm wrong*. You'll forgive me since when I asked you a direct question on this point previously you evaded it to the point where the only conclusion one could arrive at was that you were not paying US taxes and were trying to pretend you were by taking credit for other people paying US taxes.



I disagree.



Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that I think someone who isn't paying into the pool is a hypocrite when prattling on how about that money should be spent, calling it "we" and "ours" and calling for higher taxes that he or she won't have to pay.


*I'm curious how much. Given your previous attempts to claim other taxpayer's payments as your own, I'll bet almost nothing or, as trumptman noted, whatever you paid got credited back to you in a transaction that effectively means you paid nothing (or almost nothing).

And, in typical leftist fashion, you immediately get personal when losing the point. When disagreeing on some point I must be a (presumably ignorant and poorly educated) home school student. When disagreeing on another I must be an abusive and hateful husband. And so it goes. And, yes, I'm quite sure BR does endorse your post.

The simple fact is that someone who consistently claims "us" and "we" and "our" to claim co-ownership of something they themselves are not funding or contributing to is a hypocrite. Someone who consistently calls for higher taxes they themselves will not be required to pay and more laws and regulations they will not be required to live under is a hypocrite.

If you have indeed directly paid US taxes of any significant amount, then I apologize. You, of course, had the opportunity to answer that question directly previously and evaded it. You're claiming it now sounds suspicious, but I'll take you at your word though you previous attempts at misdirection have me being slightly skeptical.

You calling other people selfish and mean-spirited is quite ironic (as Frank already noted).

...The person who is consistently frothing at the mouth and spouting off some of the meanest, angriest most bitter things this board ever sees.

...The person who wants to force others to pay for his grand plans to re-shape society to his own dreams, imaginations and fantasies of Utopia.

...The person who wants to compel others to abide by his own set of values and so-called morality.

Yeah...the rest of us are the selfish ones for resisting your authoritarian plans for our lives.

This is classic BR here, folks. Don't debate the issue. Instead, ask your opponent why he thinks the nation can't be a leader who does great things.

SDW: I think we'll be using fossil fuels for a long time. We need more short-term supply while we develop alternative sources.

BR: We need to invest hundreds of billions more in alternative sources. We should forget about fossil fuel production and let the American family suffer with energy prices that are artificially high.

SDW: I disagree. We can do both, but alternative sources aren't ready for prime time.

BR: Why do you hate America?

\\



Well put. Very well put. I support alternative sources like wind, solar and geothermal. I'll go even further in stating that I support at least some level of government investment in these programs. But what we're doing now is insane. We are putting the government's boot on the throat of fossil fuel developers while we still rely heavily on those products. Then, we're throwing tens of billions at a green energy wall to see what sticks. We're subsidizing an electric car no one wants and which cannot make money. We're playing venture capitalist with upstart "green" energy firms we know are going to fail eventually. And through it all, our President is lying about oil production (claims production is up, but production on federal lands is actually down) and shirking responsibility for his program's failure.

For all the BR's out there that like to use strawman, this is my position on energy:

We need a short-term, mid-term, and long-term energy policy. Our first goal should be reducing our dependance on foreign oil. This requires much more domestic production, including on federal lands. We need to drill in the Gulf and in ANWR, as well as expedite permits elsewhere. Within ten years, we should have the goal of producing at least 75% of our oil here in the United States.

In the medium term, we should invest wisely in sources other than oil and coal. This includes wind, solar, geothermal as well as nuclear and natural gas. Within 25-30 years, our goal should be complete energy independence as a nation, with a combination of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal energy.

In the long-term, we should commit to reducing our oil and coal usage by 75% over the next 50 years. That is at least how long it will take to do this without drastically harming the economy, in my opinion. Within 75 years, we should virtually eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.


This also requires some serious changes with the EPA and other agencies. It's virtually impossible to build a coal or nuclear plant (or oil refinery) in the United States today. That should not be the case.

No. You don't get to proclaim that someone who doesn't 'pay into the system', literally, with cash dollars, directly (indirectly diesn't count) doesn't get any say and then say your wife is an exception. As a citizen, I am part of US society, and I contribute. Legally and ideologically, I absolutely do get a fucking say.

And you don't get to make false equivalencies and declare how I should or should not operate within my family.

This is the problem with you leftists, you think you have the right to tell everyone else how they can and should live...what they can and should do with their own resources but then reject anyone telling you the same...and worse...reject anyone telling you to butt out of things in which you have no real skin in the game.

Hypocrite.



The problem is that you want it both ways. You want to live in a veritable tax haven under tax rates that, were I to ask for them in the US, you'd declare insane while proposing higher taxes where you won't have to pay them and telling us how we should spend the money we're paying.

Hypocrite.

In my opinion you should have no say. No skin, no say. Simple. Anything else is you arrogantly pontificating from afar...a safe distance from the implementation of the plans and policies you wish to have imposed on the rest of us.

You claim he doesn't understand citizenship and residency and then you go spouting off where you don't understand HOUSEHOLDS or filing jointly.

The government considers them a household. They do not consider you and Hong Kong a household.

If hong kong didn't have fantastic social policy AND a balanced budget I would absofuckinglutely push for higher taxes here or cuts in pro-business spending. Nothing hypocritical about that.

If in the us they had fantastic social policy and a budget surplus, I would push for tax cuts. Nothing hypocritical about that.

I find it interesting how you assume a correlation between the higher taxes and government spending you call for in the US despite living in exactly the opposite conditions. Taxes in HK are much much lower than the US. Government spending in both absolute and relative terms are also much much lower. Yet you call for more of both in the US to make it more like HK.

Oh bullshit. You are too dense to see that the analogy isn't me and hong kong as a household, it's me and the USA as a household.

And you are too dense to see what a shitty analogy it is. \

Though I have no doubt that your leftist worldview sees it exactly this way. The US is a family. President Obama and Michele are "mom" and "dad". The government are the parents the people are just obedient children.

MJ1970, love the quote in your sig. He's one of my favorite philosophers/thinkers.

He wasn't using an analogy. He and his wife are considered a household PERIOD. You're just making nonsense up at this stage.


Exactly!

And I'm a citizen of the United States of America PERIOD, and I get a say. PERIOD.

We all get it.

You want authority without responsibility or consequences. You want the "right" to use your vote to compel others to pay higher taxes that you're unwilling to pay yourself. You want the "right" to use your vote to declare how that collected money is spent without actually contributing any of your own.

Your hypocrisy is plain for all to see.

The larger point is not whether you "get a say," but whether anyone should listen to your perspective. That perspective is influenced by a very different value system, one that is not based on individual freedoms, but the "collective good." It's one where the "social contract" outweighs a Constitution and God-given rights. And it's one where, practically speaking, there are vastly different fiscal needs (HK does not play the role in the world the U.S. does militarily, economically, etc.)

But beyond all the perspective differences, your argument really doesn't make sense as MJ notes:

I don't want the right. I have the right, so fuck you. And I do contribute plenty. You just refuse to see it. Or you're incapable of seeing it.

The US should absolutely not play the role it does militarily, for one.

And economically? The US is a DEBTOR. The US is an economic LEECH on the world.

Let's plug this all together, shall we?


Typical.

Actually, morally speaking, I'd argue you don't have such a "right" at all. Governments don't grant rights. Rights exist as a part of of our natural living existence and you or anyone else doesn't actually have a right to compel others to do those things. You just think you do.



Or you're not showing it. All I'm seeing is you contributing your opinion (and vote) about what other people should be doing and how other people should be living and how much other people should be spending according to your values.

Taxes in Hong Kong are enough to pay for our spending. Our spending pays for the stuff we need.

You're constantly suggesting that the US stop paying for the stuff we need there, so that taxes can be cut.

That's idiotic.

Stop paying for the stuff we don't need, first.

I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't get a say. The question is how much weight it carries - how much credibility it has.

Frankly, as a U.S. citizen living in the U.S., I'm more inclined to pay attention and give credibility to the small business owner living in small-town America who is about to lose his business due to increased government regulations and his house due to a government-created housing bubble than an expatriate or dual-citizen living in Hong Kong claiming the U.S. needs more government intervention in the economy when he enjoys living in one of the most economically free and prosperous regions in the world.

And you're telling me to shut up about what the US should do with our resources. You're telling me what to do. Even though I have a legal and moral right to do so.

He's not telling you to shut up, he's calling you a hypocrite.

1. I'm not telling you to shut up, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy which becomes more obvious with every word you speak, so you might want to shut up.
2. The resources aren't "ours"...there is no "we" that involves you. You collectivists think you just get to declare stuff to be "ours" and it is so. Nope.
3. You may have a "legal" right but I see no moral right at all. In fact, I consider it profoundly immoral to compel others to do what you want them to do and even more so when it is something you're not doing and unwilling to do yourself.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. I completely disagree. But, even if we slashed the defense budget by 50%, it wouldn't put a dent in our debt or deficit. I see you utterly ignored the rest of the post.


This shows your absolute ignorance on economics, once and for all. The U.S. being a debtor nation (which most nations are) does not mean we are a drain on the world's economy. The U.S. is the single biggest driver of economic growth on the planet. It's the engine of the world economy, even in these tough times.

First, your opinion of what we need is not one I share (both in my personal opinion and as outlined in the Constitution). Either way, the argument of what to cut is a different one.

Secondly, you continue to view fiscal policy as zero sum. Raising taxes by Y will not get X revenue to pay for Z spending. Taxation affects economic behavior, which affects growth, which affects revenue. Additionally, it's not just a case of balancing the budget. The entire U.S. tax code is complete nightmare.


That's exactly what I'm saying. His perspective is the issue.

And both are substantially less than in the US.



1. There is no "we" that includes you here.
2. What is needed here is clearly a matter of opinion.

1. There is no hypocrisy, as I've pointed out. We need a balanced budget and we need a social safety net, including health care. We need that in Hong Kong and we need that in the US. In this I'm 100% consistent. Consistency is not hypocrisy.
2. Bullshit. I am a citizen, and the resources of the country of which I am a citizen are OUR fucking resources. Period.
3. Who the fuck says I'm unwilling? I would absolutely push for a balanced budget that includes universal health care and social welfare if I were in the US, even if it meant I would have to pay higher taxes there. At the same time I would push for cuts to OUR budget regarding the things we DON'T need. Cutting the military isn't enough. Neither is reforming Social Security or any of the other necessities you guys want to cut. But cutting the military is a potentially huge fucking START. And there are certainly more things we can cut. Like oil subsidies, now. Like farm subsidies, now. Like ethanol subsidies, now. Like the NED and corporate welfare and tax cuts for billionaires. Put them all together and it will make a BIG dent. Without cutting the things that will put starving people on the streets, in jail, or in the ground.

So? What's the problem. Hong Kong pays for subsidized housing and universal health care. That comes first.

You keep saying that, and it's still not true. What an ignorant ass. The US is MY country. The resources of the US are OUR resources. What you say doesn't take that away. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.

Indeed. How about what Somalia needs? Since that's much closer to your ideal government structure.

Hmm... Hong Kong or Somalia... which one to learn from? Tough decisions...

Of course there is, as I've pointed out.



Ahhh...now you're moving the goal posts. We is global? Clever.



Nahhh. You're just claiming them to be yours while not contributing anything to them. I'll grant you that this is consistent with your overall worldview though.



You're still living on HK aren't you? You're still taking advantage of the income tax exemption aren't you?



That claim would carry more weight if you actually were here. At this point it's just talk.



And I agree that all those things (and more) should be cut. And taxes should also be cut. In short, it would be nice to see the US actually return to be being a constitutionally limited republic. Doing so would necessitate eliminating about 90% of what the federal government of the US currently does. Individual states would, of course, have much more latitude. For example the healthcare thing that Romney signed in Massachusetts and is bankrupting that state could be done at the state levels (though I would still oppose it) but not at the federal level.

Actually, you're not very consistent at all. Why don't we need the other things that Hong Kong has, like strictly enforced borders and emigration policy, less regulation, and lower taxes (to name a few)?

And you quickly resort to name calling when losing.







Priceless. \

Oh, I get it. You think everyone is like you and would choose where to live based on how much taxes they pay. Honestly, that's about last on my list of reasons to settle somewhere. I honestly don't give two flying fucks how much taxes I pay here as long as our collective needs are met and there's still enough incentive for capitalist expansion.

If the US had 50% tax, universal health care and subsidized housing and education, and if there were a job there I was happy doing, and an environment in which I would be happy living (and if perople were nice and I didn't have to worry about getting randomly shot), I would definitely consider living there instead of Hong Kong. Taxes are meaningless in the equation.

I'd consider Norway as an ideal destination if I weren't here. Well, except for the climate. Okay, change that to the Netherlands.

I was wondering when the tired old Somalia card would be played.

Not at all. You seem to have a regular comprehension problem here.

Usually it comes before the name-calling. But I think he might be getting disoriented.

Well...isn't that interesting. First you have the equation backwards. But that aside, at what point does the "incentive for capitalist expansion" take a hit?

It does seem you've put him off his game a bit.

So you've outlined some your values. Great. Problem is that you want to compel everyone else to live by your standards and values. This is where the problem arises. No one is stopping you or your friends who share the same values from spending 50% of your income to provide healthcare for or transportation for someone else.

<opens box of cheeze-it crackers>