Gore Calls For Immediate Freeze on C02 Emissions, Elimination of Payroll Taxes
Gore Calls For Immediate Freeze on C02 Emissions, Elimination of Payroll Taxes
Today, Former Vice President Al Gore gave a major speech on global warming at NYU law. Notably, he called for an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions:
Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.
An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead.
Gore also called for the complete elimination of the payroll tax. It would be replaced by a tax on CO2:
For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.
Gore concludes:
This is an opportunity for bipartisanship and transcendence, an opportunity to find our better selves and in rising to meet this challenge, create a better brighter future — a future worthy of the generations who come after us and who have a right to be able to depend on us.
Read the full text of the speech here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
There Gore goes again, making complete sense. I’m sure he’ll be slammed as a tax and spend librul for it. Oh to dream what might have been six years ago.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:26 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
And the rightwing trolls bring up Gore’s use of a private jet — without pointing out that he purchases CO2 credits — in 3 … 2 … 1 …
To be honest, not sure about eliminating all payroll taxes. How, exactly, would Soc. Sec.. Medicare, and other programs be funded? Seriously — seems to be a problem with that solution.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:28 pmGore’s proposal will actually reduce government by vastly decreasing tax code complexity. The government’s money supply will acutually increase, not because people will be paying more, but because the government will save money by being more efficient.
This plan to set us on a sustainble path for the next century might seem like platable proposal for both parties, but…it’ll hurt energy companies for a few quarters, so it of course must be avoided at all costs!
September 18th, 2006 at 3:31 pmRight wingers will go totally berserk about the idea to eliminate payroll taxes. It is the chief instrument used to transfer the tax burden to the poor. Nearly 80% of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, but wingers have long used a strategy of pretending that payroll taxes don’t exist.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:32 pmNow let us see what the preznit offers up (no, the other preznit).
September 18th, 2006 at 3:32 pmRemember you can dream in one hand, BUSH in the other and see which fills up first.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:34 pmGore will be dismissed for not “staying the course” – oh, wait, this isn’t about terror, but then who cares, we can find a connection and use the same rhetoric.
**sarcasm off**
September 18th, 2006 at 3:40 pmYou go, Al. Good job…
September 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pmThe Gore approach is terrific. It not only takes on global warming pollution in a sensible and practical way but it offers the Democrats a simple progressive message that can appeal to the majority of Americans.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pmI wish he were President…
Gore/Feingold 2008!
September 18th, 2006 at 3:48 pmHe’s running…
September 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pmI am not averse to Al Gore’s suggestions; I just need to understand how the SS and U costs will be covered without the payroll taxes. Would the CO2 tax replace those sources of revenue for future generations? How would SS and U payments be determined? I hope that someone can enlighten me.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pmThanks.
The koolaid drinkign wingnuts also talk about him being driven in a SUV to various apearances. They never mention that he has a full vehicle and that is more economical than seven fuel efficient cars with one person per vehicle. That is because they can only think in terms of how they operate and they operate by driving their SUV’s by themselves and can not fathom other people in the vehicle.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pmOf course, I’d want to see the details, but I am amazed. Liberals advocating tax cuts. This could be a great idea from Al Gore. Did I just say that? Let’s see how much traction you get from Harry and Nancy.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pmBig ideas out of Al today. I just hope people listen. This sort of stuff doesn’t just come from a concerned former VP. Today’s speech, on top of the news of his new book, makes me think he’ll announce he’s running for the top job again next year. One can only hope.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pmsarcasm on/
Speaking as a former member of Mensa, I think that taxes should be inversely proportional to IQ.
sarcasm off/
This is an interesting proposal. Assuming that no businesses can be exempted or allowed to continue under whatever deals the state or local governments gave them to move there, how much money would this be costing the average citizen? Would the tax burden fall more heavily on corporations than on individuals? Inquiring minds want to know. (”I want to know.”)
September 18th, 2006 at 4:03 pmI could really get behind a presidential candidate who proposed such an idea.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:08 pmLoving the talk about shifting taxes off labor and production and onto pollution. The maxim says: “Tax bads, not goods” A pollution tax is smart economics, no matter how you cut it. It is the political obstacle that is most difficult to overcome. Reducing global warming emissions needs the backing of our economy. Perhaps global warming is an issue that just might be able to get people to rally behind it.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pmI don’t know.
Per dollar of product produced, there are wild variations in C02 production. What Gore’s proposal would mean is that CO2-intensive producers would simply find it easier to move their operations out-of-country. So you’d buy your charcoal briquets from Mexico instead of from Oregon.
This would make absolutely no difference from a global perspective (the CO2 gets emitted anyway), while costing domestic jobs.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmWhat I like most about this is that is “thinking outside the box” – a proposal that can stimulate discussion, revision, generation of more ideas. This is how solutions are created. Thanks, Mr. Gore.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmErr, much as I love the idea, there is a pretty big problem. A company like, say, an insurance agency emits very little CO2, and employees a large number employees for the CO2 they emit. They are basically doing customer service and number crunching.
Compare that to any manufacturing company. Much more CO2 per employee.
Do we really want to raise taxes on manufacturing companies while lowering it on paper pushers? I’m a paper pusher, it can be productive, useful, and fulfilling… but still… this seems like it is not a good way to keep jobs in this country. :(
September 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmSupposedly this tax would be intended to reduce Co2 emissions. If it did so, wouldn’t Social Security be in big trouble? Or would the tax continue to increase to further punish those who don’t reduce their Co2 emissions? I’m no economist, so I’d love to hear some explanations of how the tax might work.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:14 pmAl Gore running for president. That’s something that Republicans and Democrats alike would support!
September 18th, 2006 at 4:19 pmI think it’s a great idea, but the devil’s in the details. One would somehow have to make it apply equally whether the CO2-producing plant is in the U.S. or in Bangladesh, as long as the plant’s owned by, or doing work contracted by, an American company. And to do that, we’d need people testing CO2 emission levels at factories around the world.
I’m not against this; I’m very much for it, if it can be done. I’m just saying that these are some of the problems that would have to be dealt with to make it work. I’m sure there are plenty more that are beyond my imagining.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:23 pmGore just doesn’t get it. If we start doing things sensibly, then the terrorist will have already won!!!
September 18th, 2006 at 4:28 pmThe fact that this effects some businesses more than others is, of course, a feature, rather than a bug, but I can see obvious lines of counter-attack against this proposal opening up in finding some type of small business — preferably something non-obvious, like a dry cleaners, or a car wash, or a florist, or some such — whose operating costs would go through the roof as a result of this (farms might be another possibility, with all the heavy machinery, transport, and whatnot). At that point, flood the zone with complaints from affected small busniess owners whose lives would be ruined.
And, yeah, there would be at least as many other types of small businesses who would find boom times ahead as their costs went down, but that’s not quite the same thing: we’re back into the territory of Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s observation that The Invisible Hand does not operate on a human scale: The fact that the same vast and impersonal market force which has just ruined your life has made someone else much happier is rarely much consolation. Misery is not fungible.
Another possible problem with this approach is that if all businesses were to invest heavily in becoming energy efficient — which is, after all, what this idea is hoping to accomplish — you would suddenly see the revenue pool which funds Social Security dry up. I’m not entirely sure that would be a good thing.
So on the one hand, in order to minimize the negative impact on businesses, you might want to phase this in gradually; on the other hand, to minimie the negative impact on the Social Security revenue stream, you might want to make plans to phase it back out again after a time, replacing it once again with something like payroll taxes. That seems like a very difficult balance to strike, both politically and practically.
On the other hand, if you consider this just as a Big Idea, rather than as an actual plan, it works brilliantly, in that it gets people thinking about problems and solutions in ways that they perhaps hadn’t before.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:29 pm“A company like, say, an insurance agency emits very little CO2..”
September 18th, 2006 at 4:31 pmFirst Gore said ‘principally on CO2′, leaving the door open for other pollutants (Gore frequently speaks of a ‘carbon tax’).
Second. CO2 is emitted in the production of may things used by the service industry from paper, autos, computers etc.. as well as the heating and cooling of the building the office is located in. I’m sure they will be assessed their share of a CO2 tax by the rules of the marketplace.
I still think I’d prefer the Fair Tax.
http://www.fairtax.org/
September 18th, 2006 at 4:32 pmThe problem for the government comes when our economy actually makes it to zero carbon emisions – talk about a problem we can deal with.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:33 pmGreat speech. As a longtime conservative who voted Republican right up through Bush ‘04 (in NJ no less), I didn’t pay much mind to the “environmentalist wackos” (as Rush called them) and always assumed the global warming problem was not nearly as bad as the Democrats (especially Al Gore) described. But in the past 2 years, I’ve completely reversed course on Bush – realizing after Katrina that I was wrong and my opponents were right, he is a horrible, disastrous president – and have spent a lot of time on this site learning the other side of a whole host of issues that I’ve been repeatedly lied to about by the right wing and their mouthpieces (Rush, Hannity, Fox News, etc.). Most of that has been the war and the terrorism fight, but also the economy, privacy rights, religion making policies, expansion of goverment, etc. Basically every single issue that conservatives supposedly believe in, the opposite has occurred in this administration, so I would have to describe myself now as the opposite of them, a progressive.
So it comes from that perspective that I’ve read about global warming in recent years, and Mr. Gore’s speech is quite brilliant in that regard. He lays out quite simply what the issues are, what some easy and more complicated solutions would be, and how much opportunity is here. It makes so much sense now that the only people who would be fighting his policy ideas (and the environmental movement) would be oil companies and other related entrenched interests (like, oh, the Bush administration).
But we’re not going to change their minds on this (did I say “we”?) Believe me, it’s difficult to accept that everything you’ve been told is wrong, and anti-global warming policy is just as strongly an entrenched belief as anti-abortion or anti-gay rights or anti-taxes. It’s all the same. So the best thing to do, for Al Gore and other progressives, is to keep working outside the system, with cities and states and companies and scientists, providing funding and initiatives to make these kind of changes on their own, without Bush even being remotely involved. That way when Gore runs for president, he can easily move some of the best ideas to a national level. And I can correct my mistake of 6 years ago, and vote for him this time.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:44 pmSeptember 18th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
September 18th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Bill, way to go on that recent enlightenment. I think you’ll find that most progressives are much nicer and more willing to face the myriad of challenges we now face. i.e. you’re in good company.
It’s encouraging to hear that someone was able to step outside their original mind-set and see things differently. Very cool.
Break those paradigms!
September 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pmI like what I’m hearing: discussion across party lines. I have some honest questions for those worried about Social Security:
Would ceasing the fund Social Security really be a big deal? The people that are expecting it are getting it or will be soon. I grew up with teachers telling us that we would never get any benefit from the program, so my generation (born 1980) and perhaps even the generation before me, dosn’t really expect to get it. In our eyes, it’s been a social front for politicos on the Hill to dip into from time to time.
Aslo: didn’t Social Security get privatized? I’ll admit to a serious lack of understanding th efull ramification of what that meant. But if that is the case, then what would be wrong with lowering government funding over the course of a decade, with the intent of making it as ‘private’ as it’s advertized as being?
September 18th, 2006 at 4:52 pmInteresting idea which should be explored and discussed in case there would be some unintended complications that may not be apparant on the surface. I would also like an simultaneous constituional amendment to accompany this proposal banning any taxes on wages in the future. A worst case scenario would be a CO2 tax and a return of the wage taxes in the future.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:00 pm“As a longtime conservative…”
It’s so encouraging to hear that some people who bought into the Bushco lies have come to see through them and that they can also listen to progressive ideas and view them as something other than propaganda. And because Gore has become synonymous with an issue which it is becoming more and more difficult to label partisan, I think he could ride that
September 18th, 2006 at 5:03 pmissue to the White House and save us from these madmen.
Bill,
Welcome aboard!
September 18th, 2006 at 5:07 pmThis is the first thing that makes sense in 6 long years! This administration is living under the rock entitled “douse the poor while the rich get richer”.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:09 pmWouldn’t this give incentive to the government to promote CO2 emission?
September 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pmIt is a good idea, but let’s treat it realistically.
Chances of ending income tax and creating a CO2 tax: 0%.
You people are naive if you really believe this can happen.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:15 pm[...] Highlights from Al Gore’s speech on global warming, delivered Monday at NYU Law.read more | digg story [...]
September 18th, 2006 at 5:19 pmThe shift away from payroll taxes needs a whole lot of analyses to back it up. Simply tossing out a “solution” like that without supporting material makes Gore look like a bit of a “magic bullet” shootin’ flake. With a nine trillion dollar debt we don’t need more flakiness in government.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:19 pmAl Gore rocks! Eliminating the payroll taxes! That is revolutionary, and needs to be discussed, nationwide. I’m sure a lot of thought has gone into this notion, and that it can be a winner, knowing Al Gore. But, of course, we deduct from the Defense Department what would have come from the payroll tax, as it was under Clinton, before the war-mongers took over.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:19 pm#40
Here’s the real deal: We are not naieve. We believe it’s refreshing and worthwhile that someone with clout is willing to address frankly the social and economic issues that effect America.
God knows the current crop is too busy calling the other guy ‘doodiehead’ or something eqully sophmoric.
So go ahead and stay under your rock. Youc an talk all day to the ants about how crazy we are to demand a path to change. We’ll just be over here, you know, evolving.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:23 pmHey even if the idea doesn’t go too far it’s good to shake things up a bit and encourage people to think differently.
Personally, I wish we’d tax the crap out of anyone who puts more mercury into the environment.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:27 pmI have become a huge Gore fan after seeing him give his slideshow in person over a year ago. He has given several major talks recently and usually provides the most well thought out and clearly stated presentation on the topic at hand. As stated above, Gore/Feingold 2008!
But, I do not see how this proposal will work, at least in the long run, for two main reasons. First, how exactly will the tax be assessed, and how will the government prevent cheating. It does not seem clear to me that those systems are well thought out, nor easily implemented, nor less complex and costly than the current system. Secondly, it is not a stable enough source of revenue to be practicle. What if we actually do keep ourselves from ruining this planet (bigger problem, granted), and steadily reduce the CO2 emissions? Will our demand for Social Security and Unemployment also decrease? Probably not, and certainly not in any direct manner. We have just recently seen a similar problem in many states whose tax structure relies to heavily on the sales tax. When the economy took a dive, the states found themselves in huge budget deficits, at just the time when help was needed the most.
But to give Gore proper credit, it is the only idea I have heard that properly switches the core of the whole crisis to introduce real financial motivation to all involved parties. And maybe for that reason it should be introduced as a replacement to part of these taxes.
Another similar application of his tax-to-inhibit-major-problems idea is in the area of recycling and the area of sustainability.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:27 pm.In Germany, there are extremely high “taxes” (or fees) for throwing away garbage, therefore people, yep… recycle.
It works. Germany is one example of how, if you close the loopholes (not allowing them to transport it to Siberia), people will follow the system.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:29 pmAnd I can correct my mistake of 6 years ago, and vote for him this time.
Comment by Bill — September 18, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
I voted for Bush in 2000. Kerry in 2004. It’s a tough pill to swallow when you wake up from the coma, but welcome to reality Bill. It’s a lot nicer (and far more ethical) on this side of the fence…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pmBill
September 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pmvery well written. an amazing turn around. I’m still laughing. When I read that others believed it really happened, I laughed even harder. Nice!
Payroll taxes would be EXCHANGED for pollution taxes – so there is no net revenue hit to employers (they’re not paying any EXTRA taxes).
However, social security etc. will STILL be payed for by this tax. The source is simply swapped out at least in the near future until we start to make real progress in dealing with the problem.
Down the road we can always switch back or make any combination of pollution / payroll that we want. For now, this solution makes sense because there is no loss in taxes, no EXTRA taxes to hit the economy, and it creates a definite incentive for employers not to pollute.
Most of all the plan has the benefit of SIMPLICITY. People can understand it and there’s not much in the way of red tape to bog down the process.
I like it.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pmYou guys can’t see the “we won’t be able to compete with the polluting Chinese” argument coming? Man, its the same every damn time.
I hope Al is running. I believe him to be the only one of the democrats (small d) to be able to beat the clowns that now call themselves republicans (small r).
g
September 18th, 2006 at 5:33 pmIt only requires a belief that it will work to gain steam. If enough people believe it, and parlay that into wanting it, then it becomes a reality.
If you think about it, global warming was really under the radar for most americans. After Katrina/Ophelia/Rita, people began to wonder ‘how are storms getting this powerful now?’ and on cue a book and movie is released by Al Gore which explains on some levels a causal relationship. And no, I’m not implying in any way shape or form that Mr. Gore timed it to be so.
Coincidentally, the tax code is already burdensome, and Bush promised to ease it. People take this suggestion, and may run with it.
There is also the coincidence of SUV sales dropping dramatically and Prius sales up as well.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:35 pmKill the 15% payroll/ self employment tax and create a 100% tax on gasoline, coal electricity, and other processes yeilding high C02 levels.
While the tax will certaintly be felt in the price of consumer goods and our energy bills, it would be a great motivator to create more fuel efficient cars and make alternative energy sources more viable. Increased net income would help soften the consumer blow.
And all it takes for our economy to adapt to is vehicles with twice the fuel efficiency, the cost of alternative fuel methods (e.g. plug in cars, hydrogen, ethenol) to fall below the cost of gasoline, and the replacement of coal power plants with friendly wind farms, nuclear power plants. Oh, and to think that our public transportation options might be improved and our power infastructure may be revamped.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:35 pmWe need to hear more about this. We have had a dearth of new ideas for old problems. It’s time for educated and intelligent people to consider innovative solutions. I’d like to hear more of this plan and its effectiveness and application.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:36 pmWhat happens when what’s left of American manufacturing leaves the country? Where are blue collar workers supposed to work, Starbucks?
Answers in 1…2…3…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:38 pmI like the idea of lifting the burden of payroll taxes and slapping taxes on businesses, since they pass through all taxes to the consumer. Payroll taxes punish the working class. It’s a step towards a pure consumption tax (H.R. 25/FairTax).
September 18th, 2006 at 5:39 pmRUN, AL, RUN!!!
September 18th, 2006 at 5:40 pmNothing useful is going to happen until we reclaim Congress.
And by ‘we’ I mean the people’s interests, not the Reps/Dems.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:41 pm[...] Al Gore broke it down today in his “major speech”: FREEZE CO2 EMMISIONS A.S.A.P.! ELIMINATE PAYROLL TAXES! [...]
September 18th, 2006 at 5:43 pmYou may not believe this, but I believe most Republicans favor lower taxes on the poor and middle class (and, of course, the rich).
September 18th, 2006 at 5:44 pmWhen are people going to smell that something is rotten with all the media and pop science: we face more or a threat with Global Warming from petro chemical based industries and 6 billion+ cattle releasing methane gas into the atmosphere…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:46 pm#30 Bill,
Welcome to the Light Side. It’s good to have you aboard. What you have done is what we would like everyone to do: Do your own research and not depend on the conservative media for your “facts”. It’s really all we’ve asked of people, and look what happened to you when you did it. Your eyes were opened and you realized that you’ve been lied to by people you trusted but who couldn’t care less what happens to you.
Now keep on doing what you’re doing: researching things yourself. It’s gotten to the point with this administration where they even cite sources for their “facts” that say the opposite of what they are proposing. Why do they think they can get away with it? Because the vast majority of their supporters are not like you; they won’t actually read the source information themselves. They’ll rely on what they heard conservatives say it said. (The conservative punditry has to read information so they know how to distort the facts to make their argument. They are not like the people they want hearing what they say.) Liberals and progressives, on the other hand, prefer to see where someone got their facts so we can see what else there might be to learn. We are naturally curious; our ideological opponents tend not to be.
So, again, congratulations on learning the truth. I hope we see you here often in the future. Don’t be afraid to speak right up, even if it’s still coming from a conservative perspective. There might be other truths out there we can help you find.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:56 pmOkay – let’s be serious here. Does anyone actually know ANYONE who actually prefers higher taxes? Of course not.
The reality is that the tax burden has shifted, in a major way, onto the average, hard-working, lower and middle class workers.
Doesn’t seem to be enough lobbyists representing that segment.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:59 pmUh, what happens to tax revenue once CO2 is halved???? Govt revenue will be halved. How will he balance the budget then? Oh yeah, if he was president when he inacted this, he would be long gone by the time CO2 was greatly reduced.
Also, how would you measure the amount of CO2 every business in the USA creates??? Sounds like another Govt beauracy that replaces the IRS with FCDA (Federal Carbon Dioxide Agency).
Lets be real here.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:03 pmIdiots
September 18th, 2006 at 6:13 pmElimination of payroll taxes would be a good thing, as long as revenue still goes into the Social Security Trust Fund! Taxes on the wealthiest Americans must be increased to 50% of their earnings, and if they do not like it, then the wealthy elite can be deported to Chile or some other stinking place that worships the elite!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:14 pmSource information please?
And not “we all know” or “everybody knows that” or “omg inheritance tax”. I want numbers. I want to see a graph that shows, over time, a shift in tax burden the other direction.
No graph, no numbers = you are at the very least misinformed and probably lying.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pmUh, and how does Gore propose we do this?
Except no one can understand exactly how to do it.
What is this, the CO2 lock box?
Oh wait, he has more, dealing with his old lock box.
While granny starves and palsy kids don’t get their surgeries.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:21 pmIdiots
Comment by ThinkCommunist — September 18, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
When you have nothing of substance to say, make third grade insults… This is exactly the kind of juvenile neo-con mindset that got us into this predicament to begin with…
September 18th, 2006 at 6:22 pmWhat are all you people high on?
September 18th, 2006 at 6:24 pmThat’s a great idea!
Let’s take everyone that owns or starts a small business and tax them so much they leave the country! Fantastic.
Where is the growth in the economy? Small businesses. Ford, GM, Delphi…shrinking. Small businesses? Growing. So let’s make it so there’s no reward for starting a business, because as soon as you start making money from your hard work, the government keeps most of it (a 50% income tax, plus the rest of the taxes, fees, and licenses to keep going would put most of those folks at 75-80% rates).
Wonderful idea. It’s working well in Germany (recession,high unemployment, high emigration of professional workers) and France (see Germany). Their economies are shrinking because of overtaxation and overregulation of businesses.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:25 pmNo, what got us into this predicament was a combination of a corrupt congress who’s taking cash from anyone with a hand out (in both parties) and a president who’s PROUD of the fact he hasn’t vetoed anything. There’s enough dumb to spread around to both parties here.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:28 pmWhile granny starves and palsy kids don’t get their surgeries.
Comment by Jake — September 18, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
No, that’s actually the Republican strategy. You greedy neocons are the team against social security and National Heathcare which would solve both of those issues…
September 18th, 2006 at 6:28 pmWhat do you want me to say about this steaming pile of dung?
“Right wingers will go totally berserk about the idea to eliminate payroll taxes. It is the chief instrument used to transfer the tax burden to the poor.”
Try taking an introductory class in economics.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:29 pmIs he out of is blinking mind? The most lucrative businesses out there make no CO2 to speak of. And big agribusiness, while doing all kinds of awful things, actually -removes- CO2 from the atmosphere. While some of the most essential services, e.g. transportation, can’t help making CO2. Gore is dreaming.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:30 pmJay,
I have read studies that show if the cap were removed from payroll taxes, there would be no problem for Social Security into the foreseeable future.
Along with eliminating the cap (now at $90,000 gross) there would have to be a table written that would indicate a maximum monthly payout to wealthy retirees (some would call it a means test), with – let’s say – no one gets more than $5000 per month in SS benefits. A couple would be able to get $10000 (combined) in addition to whatever their investments pay them.
As for Gore’s plan, it sounds great – a new way to look at solving two problems with one act – but we need to learn more about it.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:31 pmOh yeah, and neo-con implies that I was once a liberal and am now a conservative. I am not the former and I was never the later.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:31 pmI love it when I see people who have little clue about how the free enterprise system works get rock hard over economically impossible ideas like this one. That doesn’t apply to everyone here, obviously, given that some painfully obvious criticisms have already been raised.
First off, I don’t know how many of you have been paying attention but over the past 20 years the economy has made a miraculous transformation from one of manufacturing to one primarily made up of services. I bet half of the people on this site work for a software industry or some related industry but you still don’t see the obvious. We would be shifting the Social Security tax burden from every single employee and employer to a disproportionately small segment of employers. It wouldn’t make any sense for these businesses to remain in the country. Suddenly, every CO2 producing competitor outside of the States will be able to sell their product with SUBSTANTIALLY lower costs. Now, think about this. Requiring 30% of our society to take on a geometrically increasing tax albatross is impossible.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the 20% of companies that are emitting 80% of the CO2 pollutants actually stay in business by some pixy dust scenario that you guys delude yourselves into. What kind of Nazi enforcement agency is going to be responsible for measuring CO2 emissions and making tax assessments on a regular basis? You think that the Social Security tax is complicated? It’s the easiest tax to assess and collect in the history of taxation. What’s gets me is that most of you would still blame the mass exodus of the remaining manufacturing jobs on Republicans.
Please, don’t just blindly accept ANY idea just because it involves Gore or the environment.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:32 pmThere’s a problem with a “sin tax” like this (assuming CO2 generation can be counted as a “sin”)–the goverment and industry are set to work at cross purposes.
Business, being taxed on its CO2 footprint naturally moves to minimize emissions. In order for the government to maximize (or even maintain) revenues from CO2 emissions, it has two choices–raise rates or encourage production of CO2.
Consider that most states with lotteries must advertise them to keep revenues flowing–which is hardly beneficial to the gamblers as a whole, since the game is stacked against them.
Some years ago, we had a deep drought in California. Initially, the local utility banned watering of lawns during the daytime and imposed comsumption surcharges. The volume of water sold dropped drastically as conservation measures took hold. Eventually, the rains returned, but the utility was forced to increase rates to cover their basic fixed operating costs. It would have been better for the consumers had they not conserved!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:37 pmAnd now that I’m thinking about this, how would this solve global warming anyway?
Here’s what I’m thinking. So build painted widgets. And the taxes are too high to build them in the states. So I farm it all out to Mexico, where there are, effecitively, no environmental laws. So now I pay no taxes in the states and still get to sell cars here.
What, you’re going to police a company in another country? Good luck with that.
I mean, they already outsource all the painting outside the US because it’s cheaper, now you wanna outsource the rest? I thought y’all wanted to save middle class jobs? This just seems to be a great way to accelerate outsourcing.
So I fire everyone in my widget shop, convert it half into loft apartments and half into an extensive widget showroom and internet widget clearinghouse. And I pay taxes for the lights and air conditioning (offset by the rent upstairs), pay less for labor to make my products, pay no taxes.
Yeah, that’s a pro-middle-class agenda there.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:38 pmchris lol > open your eyes the economy is on the verge of collapse in the US thanks to Bush and the wealthy greedy elite! The US is too lopsided toward the wealthy, so stop defending greedy people please!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:39 pmOh yeah, and neo-con implies that I was once a liberal and am now a conservative. I am not the former and I was never the later.
Comment by ThinkCommunist — September 18, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
No it doesn’t. It implies you are a conservative extremist. And you prove that with each post. Never offering anything but juvenile insults.
Try some facts. Or do you know any?
September 18th, 2006 at 6:41 pmWhat happened to my post – with facts – that refuted Chris’s nonsense about Germany being in chaos?
Germany, like all other countries do, went through a recession. However, unlike the US, they are recovering quite nicely.
His post was b.s.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:48 pmchris > nobody is suggesting that small business owners be deported anywhere > the wealthy elite I refer to are the CEOs of large corporations!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:49 pmHm, this works better if we go back to having disincentives for off-shoring, out-sourcing, etc.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:50 pmI will have to agree with the poster about The Fair Tax. Read Neil Boortz book. It will enlighten you. His Co-author is a Republican. Taxes can go away. As to CO2, I am personally tired of the rantings of some people. I am in the Fire Protection industry and the Montreal Accords of 1991 really screwed us over. First the hole in the ozone layer is getting bigger and now less than 15 years later it is getting smaller. Scientific data is only godd for the last 100 years max when it comes to the environment, unless you want to count core samples from Antarctica. CO2 is a product we use in Fire Protection that is very effective. All this will do is create another Halon type hysteria. Why don’t we wait another 10 years and see if the Cardox problem goes away. Also how are we going to make developing nations reduce CO2 emissions. It did not work back in 1991.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:53 pmMy 2 cents for what it is worth.
Numbers please or it’s a lie.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:58 pmOh, ok. So people like, say, the Heinz family. Who pay no taxes at all, really.
There was a reason John Kerry didn’t publish his tax returns. He’s one of those rich you’re talking about.
Where’s the line by the way? Where you become one of the “omg you’re too successful” rich?
September 18th, 2006 at 7:00 pm#86 said:
I want a refund.
September 18th, 2006 at 7:03 pmI’ve been looking for a concrete, intellectual argument favoring liberalism as a philosophy.
I’ve yet to see one.
Every time I ask, I get quoted things about personal freedom (oh, unless you want to own private property, or pay less taxes, in which case we’re against personal freedom) or “helping the disadvantaged” by taking away all the opportunities people have to become not-disadvantaged. Or about creating a “level playing field” by penalizing some group or another.
I’m not buying it.
Anyone?
September 18th, 2006 at 7:05 pm#73 – yeah, man, that’s me, neocon central. yup, I’ve been a Republican all my life. Not.
moron.
Oh, yeah, there’s nothing greedy about the AMA lobby up Democrats’ asses trying to form a more mighty monopoly over medicine than they already have. Get real.
September 18th, 2006 at 7:11 pmIf I was American and could vote I would vote for Al.
He seems to be the only politician with more neurons than you can count. To put it differently, he’s not a retarted asshole.
From the outside world (the other side of the U.S borders) it seems that America’s only business is destroying the World’s peace AND future just to make an extra buck.
Let’s hope for the future of manking that he wins AGAIN in 2008.
September 18th, 2006 at 7:13 pmThe AMA was the last of the major professional medical associations to call for a national solution to our health care problems, even though the average physician salary would likely go down. Because the evidence is all to clear that the current system leaves far to many people without the care they need.
Not that I think it is a right of ours, but because it seems immoral not to provide the care to the most needy in our society when as a country we do have the wealth to provide that level of care.
Imagine what the money we have spent on the Iraq war could have provided!
September 18th, 2006 at 7:49 pmGet real.
Comment by Jake — September 18, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
You wouldn’t know reality if it introduced itself as such.
You can say you aren’t a con, but as you cons fail to realize, actions speak LOUDER than words.
Though, I get a feeling ‘moron’ you know from personal experience from acting like one – making asinine claims without facts. You get real. You aren’t even close.
September 18th, 2006 at 7:58 pmTalk to me when you read The Fair Tax Book. Solves the tax problem. Nuff said about taxes. And for politicians in general they are all on the take. Both sides are at fault. I did not make this a left – right battle you did. As to my industry it recovered after 10 years. My point is that you need to ROTFL when you discuss subject matter. I was pointing out that science is inexact and listening to people spout out how we need to do something immediately without doing due diligence is foolish. As I said do your research first then make a comment! Also as to caps try not using them. Your emotions are out in the open and there is no need to shout. Liberals typically have to shout to get the point across because they need to be the last one heard.
September 18th, 2006 at 7:58 pmTheUCM – The Montreal protocol saved your life. The reason the ozone hole is getting smaller is because the regulations it put in place are working. If we had lost the stratospheric ozone which blocks most ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth, we would all go blind, get skin cancer and die.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:02 pmI think this is a great move from Gore. Other countries have applied the same taxes to cover pollutions costs.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:07 pmI INVENTED THE INTERNET!
September 18th, 2006 at 8:20 pmThank ‘whatever supreme diety’ this ass clown didn’t get elected as president. Bush is an idiot, but this guy is king of the morons. How does purching CO2 ‘credits’ help the environment? Oh as long as you pay for destroying the burrowing owl habitats – that ok. Gotcha ya, I have a a $20, where is the tip jar I feel like clubbin a baby seal.
unvelievable – I love the comment about not knowing REALITY – pot meet kettle.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:21 pmUnabomber or Al Gore you decide – priceless
http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
September 18th, 2006 at 8:30 pmPatrick + Kennedy- The Montreal Protocol did not save my life or anyone elses. Latest research has found that the ozone layer expands and contracts on its own, without our help either way. The Science and world community rammed it down America’s throat by guilting us into believing we were at fault. The biggest polluter in the world is not caused by humans, but Volcano’s. You are obviously educated but the small businessman in this country is being run into the ground everytime we force a regulation down on his business. They adapt well to these influences but not all. When will we force the world to adopt the measures you propose? They laugh at us behind our backs because we are forced to spend money to do right while thay continue to do wrong.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:31 pmSo we (a country of 300 million) will unilaterally freeze CO2 emissions and damage OUR economy while India and China (cimbined 2.5 billion) will merrily churn it out all that they want in their manufacturing factories?
Whadda genius!
September 18th, 2006 at 8:42 pmSo the is no proof for ozone depletion caused by humans and no proof for ozone depletion NOT caused by humans. Why is this guy the champion for the environment?
September 18th, 2006 at 8:52 pmSince 1952, 58,188 natural women have been urinated on! Jeb Bush!!!!? Bill Frist!!!!? I can’t tell one MARIONETTE for the pharmaceutical lobby from the other! U.S. get out of Antarctica. Pope Benedict is a tool of talk radio!
September 18th, 2006 at 9:00 pm#30 – Yay Bill! Welcome to Think Progress!
You know what, TP commenters? I don’t want Al to run for president in 2008. We need him doing exactly what he’s been doing for the last couple of years — giving impassioned speeches that help bring light to all the darkness in this country. If he runs, he’ll have to temper that passion, and it will hurt us.
Feingold/Obama 2008!
September 18th, 2006 at 9:22 pmSuggesting that a neutral tax swap of payroll tax for C02 tax would directly represent a substantial drop in tax complexity seems a mild form of lunacy.
Accounting for C02 in a manner that represents a tax neutral transition would be highly complex and possibly unrealistic. It would mean a significantly varying valuation of C02 production volume in a wide range of different contexts to even hope to make it so that industries (and individuals) do not see dramatic, sudden and potentially unsurvivable financial stress as a result.
That said, I’m all for finding a solution that works to transition substantial portions of non-environmentally oriented taxation into environmentally-oriented taxation… And I say that even with the thirstly vehicle I drive.
If the incumbant energy forms and social norms become fiscally unsustainable through taxation change then alternatives will get more attention and become a lot more attractive, which means more options, better volume production and a resulting drop in cost.
The world needs a push to find better ways of doing things and, somewhat sadly, most of the world is waiting for the US before taking the plunge. Gore might not have a complete plan but I’ve got to applaud some assertive new ideas.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:51 pm1. Tie SS and Medicare benefits to carbon dioxide emissions
2. Reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as possible
3. Eliminate SS and Medicare
Any questions?
September 18th, 2006 at 10:34 pmActually neocons were once just about communist. They were leftist radicals that realized they could get farther under the label “conservative.”
September 18th, 2006 at 10:43 pmJake, Only one question, How old are you.?
September 18th, 2006 at 10:50 pmGood evening Sharon,
I would add another question…
Jake, have you ever cracked a book?
September 18th, 2006 at 11:19 pmThe only problem I have with any plan is letting the government run it. The government would do with that money what they have done with SS They spent it. SS would be in good shape now if the people in government had kept their hands off of it instead of taking it and replacing it with IOUs. If you go back and read the original Social Security Act you wil find that it was to cover those who worked and put money into it. It seems now a days everyone but the one who earned it is getting the lion’s share. Survivor benefits and things like that.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:29 pmWell, somehow my post didn’t go through.
Listen, apparently I’m older than unbelievable.
Anyone who calls me a neocon but doesn’t address my points needs to grow up.
How gullible are you Sharon and Zooey?
You are cheerleading for something simply because Al Gore said it.
You don’t even know how he plans to implement his plans.
Yet here you are cheerleading.
Please address my points, if you can.
Do you think it’s wise to tie social security to a commodity that you plan to eliminate?
Please explain, in detail, Gore’s plan that you are cheerleading.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:31 pmRE: The UCM and ozone depletion:
Not sure where you are getting your information on “recent science” but all the available data supports the original work by Rowland that netted him the Nobel Prize. Perhaps you think that was a liberal plot……
We are indeed lucky that the Montreal Protocol succeeded in phasing out CFCs, though we will still see elevated skin cancer levels for the rest of our lives.
I seem to recall that Tom Delay started his political career as a very pissed off exterminator, wrangling for the elimination of the EPA. Now there’s a new line of work for you!
September 18th, 2006 at 11:32 pmBack at ya Zooey, Some fair weather headed you’re way…Was nice this evening, here…Trees shedding fast and everything in nature is pointing to winter…We old Libra women love spring and fall the most….Winter’s a hard sell for me, worry what trees and wildlife are struggling to survive….
Lot’s of crap going on, caught most of it on the new’s.. Use to think four letter word’s were the worst, now I know one three letter word is…War… Blessings young lady.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:39 pmI’m all for the smart electric grid. Make that affordable and I’m all in.
I can’t afford solar panels and a windmill on my roof right now.
This idea has been around for a long time.
I’m all for reducing CO2 emissions, great.
But, switching out payroll taxes, upon which SS and other things rely, for a tax on CO2 is dumb on its face.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:41 pmJake, I didn’t say I supported anything on either side….You made comment’s and then asked for any question’s….I responded with a question….How old are you.?..Period….If you answer the question I may or may not have a comment.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:44 pmPlease explain, in detail, Gore’s plan that you are cheerleading.
Comment by Jake
I am cheearleading the fact that somebody is coming up with alternative ideas. Who knows if any of it will fly? We can’t keep doing what we’re doing now.
Is that ok with you, Jake?
You probably wouldn’t like the type of links I’m usually asked to provide…
September 18th, 2006 at 11:58 pmSharon,
The trees and wildlife wouldn’t dare go under on your watch.
Got caught in the rain this evening. It was fantastic! We need it.
You can keep calling me young lady as much as you want, Sharon!
I consider you a Lagniappe — Cajun French meaning a surprise, or found treasure, sometimes a dessert. :)
September 19th, 2006 at 12:05 am[...] read more | digg story [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 12:41 amSomeone else a few year’s ago used that dessert term but he…….Never mind. I’ll get banned..LOL.
Comment by Sharon Cox
Somehow I knew that about you, Miz Sharon…. :-D
September 19th, 2006 at 12:43 amI don’t think we will be doing away with Taxes anytime soon with the costs of Bushcos supply-side crusades and wars, past, present and future.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:51 amAgain, Gore is ahead of the curve. The other benefit of the proposal to eliminate payroll taxes completely neuters Republican demagogery on taxes. This proposal actually puts money back into the pockets of the lower 99%, not the upper 1%. In an amount HIGHER than any Republican “tax cut” in the past.
Will the employer portion of the tax go away also?
September 19th, 2006 at 8:16 amGore is one of the biggest producer of CO2, from his plane and his mouth. I love how it is mentioned it is O-kay that he flys around in a jet, he buys credits. So What! Is he trying to reduce CO2 or raise money. Lunatic and hypocrite.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:21 amMaybe because you don’t pay attention?
Show me one – just ONE – Democrat who has ever said that people shouldn’t own private property. And, last I checked, we on the left want a FAIR tax code, not one that gives huge breaks to the rich and very few to the middle and lower classes.
Oh, and perhaps you can enlighten on us on how either of those issues has a damn thing to do with “personal freedom.†Personal freedom means that two consenting adults should be able to marry, regardless of their gender. Personal freedom means not having the government tell people what they can or cannot do to their own bodies.
Not sure why that’s so hard for you to figure out.
Again, you make a claim but offer zero proof. Progressives are for strengthening education (one of the truest paths out of poverty).
Republican’ts, on the other hand, create clusterf***s like “No Child Left Behind†which, including being so underfunded that states are suing the federal government, only teaches kids how to pass a test.
Seems to me that the right cares more about helping those at the top, while ignoring all those on the bottom (and just see the recent increase in CEO pay and Katrina for proof).
It has less to do with “creating a level playing field†and more to do with ensuring that the rich don’t get all the benefits. And that’s EXACTLY what’s happened in the last 6 years – the rich keep getting richer, while the rest of us have stagnant wages, rising energy and health care costs (except for the 45 million of us who have no health care), and a continued erosion of opportunity.
Probably because you’re not shopping for truth – you’re just spending demagoguery.
Now go away, or I shall Fisk you a second time!
September 19th, 2006 at 9:45 am[...] Gore Calls For Immediate Freeze on C02 Emissions, Elimination of Payroll Taxes » [Think Progress] Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 10:14 amNo, because nobody’s made one yet. You don’t either. But thanks for the fourth-grade response, it merely bolsters my opinion that the liberal movement is all style no substance.
Show me a democrat with respect for private property. Show me one that wants to reduce my taxes so I can keep more of the money I earn. Or that’s more interested in earning income than redistributing it. “Oh, we want you to have private property, but we want to be able to tell you you can’t smoke in a restaurant, in a car, or outdoors”. Or better yet, “yeah, we know you don’t have kids, and don’t plan to ever have kids, but we’re going to take your money to teach your neighbor’s kids”. Oh, wait, one more, “Oh, that music has bad words in it, we can’t let you listen to that”. That one’s courtesy of our near first lady Tipper. See that, not from a neo-con republican, but from someone who was almost in a position of power. Good one there.
And I don’t care about democrats. I want to know about liberals. If the democrats have strayed from the roots of liberalism as much as the republicans have strayed from being conservatives, the two are not the same. The republicans are not conservative. Are democrats liberal? Because I don’t know what liberal is, and you’re completely unpersusasive about what it is or why it’s a good idea. Which is all I asked, and you failed to answer.
The FUNDAMENTAL personal freedom is ownership of private property. If you don’t understand that, you really should go read some books.
Because there are no persuasive arguments presented. There is a lot of emotion and confrontation, but no “hey, here’s what we believe and why we believe it”. I know very well what you’re against. I have no idea what you’re in favor of.
OK, there are EXACTLY 500 CEO’s of fortune 500 companies. I give you permission to tax them to oblivion. Just reduce my taxes. Congratulations, you how have millions more dollars in the treasury. You, however, need billions. So sorry, you lose.
The strawman “CEO” argument is boring and stupid. There are more millionaire athletes than CEO’s. Why not pick on them sometime?
Oh, and Katrina. That’s rich. Let’s see, the Federal government gives Louisiana the money to fix the levies, and the state government, corrupt as it is, “loses” it. Which party was the entire local government, from the mayor, to the state legislature, to the congressional representatives and senators? Oh yeah. Not republican.
“Gee there’s a big storm coming and I live below sea level, I guess I’ll just sit here and die”. Good thing we don’t spend millions to forecast that, that they had an evacuation warning. Sorry, Katrina was Darwin at work. Anyone who lost anything in that mess has exactly one person to blame, and they can find them in the mirror. Quit blaming the government for everything. Take care of yourself. Or at least try to. It’s one thing to ask for help, it’s another thing to expect everyone to give you everything.
And again, do you have anything besides democratic party class warfare for persuasion?
Excuse me. Numbers please? From what I’ve read tax revenues from income taxes are up, rates haven’t increased. That means incomes are up. Hmm…So wages aren’t stagnant. And since health care costs are deductible, that hasn’t been a factor. So maybe it’s all fuel costs? Then quit driving SUV’s.
I’m spending demagoguery. But you’re the one that’s saying “CEO’s” “Katrina” and blaming everything bad on a President. Who exactly is spending demagoguery? I’m asking an honest friggin question here. And I’m getting demagoguery back.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
You quoted me and made horrible arguments barely tangential to my questions. You took someone who was asking to be taught and made fun of them, and did so badly. I asked honest questions, I got back demogoguery and party lines. I asked about theory, and I got back the intellectual equivalent of “OMG BUSH CAUSED KATRINA OMG”.
I think that’s really because you got no game. I don’t think there is any intellectual argument for your positions.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:11 amMaybe I’m being unclear on what I want.
The essence of libertarianism is the principle of non-coersion. The idea that it’s morally wrong to force someone to do something they don’t want to, or use force to prevent someone from doing what they want to do and have means to accomplish. The implications of this are far reaching, and subject to interpretation, but that’s the underlying structure. That’s the pin that holds the idea to the wall.
The essence of conservatism is very simple: change is bad. That’s somewhat simplified, but really is the pin that holds conservatism to the wall. Things are good now, they’ve been good in the past, let’s not muck with it. It isn’t broke, don’t fix it. The implications of this are far reaching, and subject to interpretation, but that’s the underlying structure.
Republicans, by this definition, are by and large not conservatives.
Libertarians are pretty close to their ideal of non-coersion in their party. I don’t agree with a lot of it, but it’s a lot closer to my beliefs than conservatism.
What’s the underlying structure of liberalism? What’s the pin that holds the idea to the wall. What’s the foundation upon which the philosophy is built?
Or if you’d like to rephrase the question, or maybe it’s a different question, because I DON’T KNOW, what’s the underlying structure of the progressive movement? If it is distinct and different from liberalism, can anyone explain both? Preferably without mentioning the words “Bush” “Katrina” or “CEO”?
Anyone?
September 19th, 2006 at 11:34 amchris–
I love this gem:
Pretty funny for a guy who calls people “morons” and then creates strawman after strawman.
For example, I could post a link, say, to this to show exactly what the plan is, but I’m sure you’d do some sort of mental gymnastics to discount it.
I could post a link to this showing that wages are, in fact, stagnating for a vast majority of Americans. But you’d just keep going with your rant about how great everyone has it.
You keep posting stuff like “OMG BUSH CAUSED KATRINA OMG†even though I never mentioned Bush — not even once. And I didn’t do so because it has more to do with general GOP cronyism and incompetence than it does just one man.
I could keep going — after all, you made it way too easy by throwing out stuff without a single shred of supporting material — but it seems to me that you’re much, much more interested in throwing around hypocritical attacks and inventing ideological bogeymen. Kinda like the mythcial liberals are anti-private-property-ownership line. Seriously — WTF? I ask you to name one single respected Democrat who has said anything of the sort, yet you fail to do so (probably because none exist).
So, please, continue to make stuff up and discount any fact that proves you wrong. Because, when you do, it makes it all too apparent who has no intellectual argument for his positions.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:52 amchris (post #143)–
From my perspective, here’s how I see what used to be the differences:
Republicans (not the Neocons we have now, but true Republicans), believe that the government will, sooner or later, screw stuff up. Because of this, government should be small and efficient. Free markets should rule, and the private sector should handle many of the things the government currently does.
Liberals believe that government is there to serve the people and do the most good. The markets should be free, but only up to a point since history has shown that corporations, when left unfettered, will put profit ahead of what is right for workers and consumers.
Now, does that apply today? Not so much. But in a perfect world, those would the true differences.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:57 amChris,
Your last post poses your question very concisely. I hope you can get as concise an answer, because I’ve been wondering the same thing for a while. What are the fundamental principles of liberalism? How does progressivism differ? I suspect it will have something to do with equality, but there are many different ways people can be made equal. Which ways are the government’s responsible to enforce?
I think people tend to argue the details rather vehemently (like here) without even bothering to understand what may be the guiding principles of the adversary. Or, especially with this site, assume your adversary’s principles are just PURE EVIL! There’s no chance of useful dialog with that belief.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:58 amI consider myself quite the fiscal conservative and I completely back Al Gore here. The brilliant part is that the CO2 tax would replace payroll taxes! Why are we taxing businesses for giving people jobs? It’s madness! Nice job Al.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:05 pmUnholy Moses – #145,
In liberalism is there a clear distinction of which responsibilities belong to the government and which to individuals? Of government responsibilities, is there a distinction between federal, state, and local responsibilities?
Conservatives can’t find those distinctions within liberal philosophy and so don’t inherently trust that the structure of government will ever become stable. The definition of what government must do for the people can always be increased. Conservatives also fear that taking too many responsibilities away from individuals will lead to individuals becoming irresponsible.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pmTo follow up on my post #145–
There are, obviously, other differences (social and environmental issues, for example), but the big differences are that conservatives think government can do harm, while liberals see the government as able to do good.
And why I posted that it would be like that in a perfect world is that it would provide the necessary balance — government programs to help others (food stamps, etc.) are necessary, but should be limited; corporations should have a great deal of freedom, but should be watched to prevent abuse; individual rights should be protected, but not at the expense of the greater good.
Not sure of that clarifies things or not …
September 19th, 2006 at 12:15 pmHigher taxes for higher emissions… I like. Go Gore!
September 19th, 2006 at 12:19 pmSeth (#148)–
Great questions! Unfortunately, I don’t have all the answers.
And on the flip side, I don’t see much clarity in the conservative philosophy — they say they’re for smaller government, but have currently created the biggest bureaucracies ever (DHS).
They say they’re for personal responsibility, yet fail to take any responsibility for their failures (Ney, Delay, Bush).
They say they’re for strong families, yet seem to be adulterers (Gingrich) or have a taste for hookers (Cunningham).
And our government hasn’t been made anywhere near stable, even after more than a decade of conservative Congressional leadership (massive debt, a depleted military).
Now, this isn’t to say that the other side is perfect — it sure as hell isn’t. The fact is, both sides have strayed so far from what they’re supposed to believe in that, sometimes, it’s hard to tell them apart.
I dunno … maybe we just need to scrap the whole thing and start all over.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:23 pm:-)
OK, that’s cool. I like that. Clear decisive policy, laid out. Concrete. I’d like to see more particulars but hey, it’s a 2 page pamphlet, they had to make room. It’s enough for me to start researching and learning from. Thank you.
I won’t say I think they’re all good ideas, but I’ll say that they’re all ideas, and they’re worthy of consideration. Thank you.
I do have one question. Why don’t I hear more about this particular pamphlet? I read the news (typically CNN, Foxnews (both, so it really is fair and balanced) and local news). I listen to NPR on occasion, usually podcasts. Why aren’t they getting this word out? It’s a strong message on defense, a strong message on the future, and a strong message on the economy. The political ads I see on TV just tell me that my senator sucks becuase he gave money to oil companies while gas prices were high.
Do the democrats really suck that bad at marketing?
Oh, and this:
Cronyism is everywhere. Both parties. Always has been, and will be until we have more transparency in government. Don’t go thinking the GOP is unique for cronyism. The way the system is set up it’s going to happen, and it doesn’t matter who’s in charge. Democrat and Republican are, if you look at it from a distance, as indistinguishable as coke and pepsi. And they’re really just brands, not representative of ideologies. They’re both self interested, bigoted, power hungry groups interested in getting and holding power. That’s it. One side will tell you one brand of lie, and the other side will feed you the other.
And:
See, one each:
That’s from your link above. Trying to fix the price at which someone sells something is a direct infraction of private property. Telling someone how much they can sell something they own for is directly a circumvention of private property laws. Oh, and it’s not sound economics. The only way to stop “price gouging” is to regulate prices. Very bad things will ensue.
Plus, let’s take this to it’s logical extension. Let’s say I own some gasoline. A lot of it. And that law is in effect, and I can’t sell my gas legally at a level where I break even, so I choose not to sell it. The government response then would be that I have to sell it and take the loss (that’s happened, early 1970’s under Nixon actually, and any other government worldwide that’s tried to do it). That’s an infraction on my right to own it then, isn’t it? What if I could sell for the fixed price at a profit, but not enough profit? Oops, I can’t set the price, and I’d be forced to sell it.
Florida has anti-price-gouging laws regarding refrigerators and generators before hurricanes come. As a result, people aren’t importing as many generators and refrigerators because there’s not enough money in it. If I’m an entrepreneur in, say, Tennesee, and hurricane season is coming, it might be a good way to make some cash to load up a u-haul with generators, drive down to florida and sell them at a nice profit. Without that motive, why should I bother? That actually happened, by the way.
You think of private property in a very narrow sense, directly involved in ownership as in holding a title of a piece of real estate.
Private property is the stuff I own, from my car to my iPod, to my house, to this little goofy mirror desk toy. It’s all property.
The ability to not smoke in a bar is a direct restriction on the ownership of private property. And it’s a favorite of democrats everywhere. The largely democratic board of aldermen in Chicago recently decided that a landowner couldn’t build a store they objected to. They also decided that you couldn’t buy or sell certain foodstuffs, not because of health concerns or because it would get you high, but because they don’t like the way the animals are raised.
Whether you agree with the two issues or not, take a step back and look at it from an ownership perspective. If you own something, you should be able to do what you want with it, within the law. You don’t deserve to have the government single you out with crafted legislation to keep you from doing things.
I’m not, and will never, say that the republican party is more principled. They’re all crooks by my reckoning.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:38 pmYou are confusing republicans with conservatives again. The two are not the same group. I’m not even sure they intersect anymore.
Good conservatives are for small government (fundamental mistrust of government) and for private ownership of capital. The republicans we have currently are in favor of neither of those platforms.
Real conservatives would have chopped about 4 cabinet positions, put INS into DoS, customs and border patrol in DoD, made airline security the responsibility of *gasp* airlines *gasp*, and called it good. And we’d probably still be safer than we are today.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:43 pmI’ve long heald the following pattern is correct:
Coke vs Pepsi
Mc Donalds vs Burger King
Miller Light vs Bud Light
Nike vs Adidas
Republican vs Democrat
They’re all the same. I different brand stickers and logos.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:46 pmThere is definitely a lot of inconsistency in the words and the actions of the Republicans in charge. The “size of government” inconsistency is the most obvious right now. Since I lean more libertarian, I am more prone to back those who advocate a smaller government. I have become severely disenchanged that the government has grown so big, but am not sure that the Democrats wouldn’t have done the same thing were they in charge. They don’t even advocate smaller government.
Some individual Republicans have their own hypocrisies (Gingrich, Ney, etc.), but some Democrats certainly do as well. You can’t legitimately blame the entire party for the indescretions of some of its members. I note that far too many people use exactly that tactic, however. The growth of the government is the party’s fault, but gambling, prostitution, and corruption are the faults of the individual practitioners.
I think that each side considers scrapping the system when the other side is in charge. It seems human nature to be repulsed at the thought of our ideological opponents having any power. But this is the nature of our government. I doubt I can quell anybody’s fears, but no, Bush isn’t really going to declare marshal law and cancel the ‘08 election. If he did, I would be a part of the resistance. In ‘08 we’ll all line up, vote, pick a new president, and the people who didn’t get their way will decry it as fraud. This is apparently the new “dialogue”.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:47 pmHow about just eliminating income tax period!
September 19th, 2006 at 12:48 pmI just wanted to comment on how great the discussions were (for and against what Gore proposed) until the trolls came in and started with the insults. Even regular TP posters who I highly respect tend to get “dragged down” to their level (I have too), despite their best efforts to maintain maturity in the face of such garbage and insulting posts. I wish TP could do some sort of troll-filter… The conservatives and skeptics that post mature comments are so very welcome and the discussion is wonderful, but the insulting trolls are so very, very annoying. I’m looking directly at you Jake, TheUCM, ThinkCommunist and so on.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:00 pmThe problem with taxation is that it’s like eating peanuts; once you start you can’t stop, so that about says it. A flat tax is the best option overall for the majority, but that will never happen due to all the accountants, tax laywers, corporations, etc, etc who benefit from the present taxation.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:22 pmLook, here is the real difference between liberals, neocons and conservatives:
Conservatives favour things remaining as they are.
Liberals favour tinkering with things to make them better.
Neocons favour destroying them completely.
Neocons are not conservatives, nor are they liberals, they are just destructive.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:31 pmParrotlover77 – I disagree – I think there is still a good discussion going.
I like how the liberal argument is framed. UnHolyMoses says:
Liberals believe that government is there to serve the people and do the most good. The markets should be free, but only up to a point since history has shown that corporations, when left unfettered, will put profit ahead of what is right for workers and consumers.
This is opposed to conservatives who think think the government will eventually screw it up. Which I agree with. But my question….Isnt the government a corporation? And arent they ‘eventually’ (or always) going to screw it up? So how does a liberal defend the largest corporation in the planet’s consistent screwing up?
September 19th, 2006 at 1:42 pmchris–
Wow … let me just say that I obviously misjudged you. And for that, I apologize.
Your posts #152 and #153 brought up excellent points. It’s true that the current crop of Conservatives aren’t really true Republicans, just as many so-called Progressives aren’t really true Democrats.
While I don’t have time to respond to all of your points, there was one that caught my attention:
IMHO, there are a few reasons:
1. The Dems suck at marketing — They’ve failed to get a coherent, unified message out for years. Part of that is because liberals tend to abhor talking points (they like to think of themselves as individual thinkers), and the other part is because they tend to stick to their key points. Which leads me to …
2. They’ve already changed the “Six for ‘06″ platform — That fact is beyond frustrating. The six points they laid out were quite good, IMHO, and the fact they keep tinkering with it is clinically retarded. They need to stop worrying about opinion polls, form their platform, and stick to it as much as possible. Yes, they should leave room for new facts and changing conditions, but the core principles should stay the same.
3. The media really isn’t all that liberal — Yes, many journalists consider themselves as such, but most of the editors and media owners are not. Having worked in two newsrooms, I can assure you that editors have a lot more control than some think (although, that may have just been the places I’ve worked).
What I find truly depressing is that our country has always been ran by individuals bent on furthering their own gains (and most of them have been rich white males) rather than looking out for the rest of us. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule, but for the most part that’s been the case.
But the current lack of compromise collaboration and competence is ruining this country. Add in a lack of personal accountability, massive corruption, politicians who see winning as the one and only goal, and leadership that demands total loyalty above all else, and it’s no wonder that we’re heading down the road to utter disaster.
I may not be 100% sold that the Dems are the perfect answer to these issues, but I have seen very, very little to convince me that the Neocons should be given the chance to fix the mess they’ve created.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:48 pmWhoops … the first point in post #161 should read:
” … and because they FAIL to stick to their points … ”
I really wish TP had a preview post feature.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:00 pmHere’s a quick thought experiment to demonstrate the concern that libertarians have about ceding personal responsibilities to government.
Pick some abstract personal responsibility. Every person chooses how or if they fulfill that responsibility to themselves. Say that 80% of the people adequately fulfill that responsibility and 20% do not. The shortcoming of the 20% is used to justify making that personal responsibility a government responsibility instead.
Now the government is in charge of choosing how that responsibility is fulfilled. However, civil servents and even civil leaders come from the same population of fallible humans that were making the personal choice to begin with. But the choice is only made once for everybody, instead of once for each person. You can roughly estimate that the chosen path has an 80% chance of fulfilling that responsibility, and a 20% chance of failing to fulfill it. The probabilities are the same but the risk has now been elevated to the level of the entire population, rather than the individual. If government picked the right path, huzzah! If not, God help us all.
Now this was a simplistic model, probably akin to choosing whether or not to smoke. The individual’s choice is whether they personally smoke, and the government’s choice becomes whether nobody smokes or everybody does.
If all of life’s responsibilities were that simple, I wouldn’t have as much problem ceding those responsibilities. I would probably agree with the government’s choices most of the time. But most personal responsibities are not that simplistic. There are usually several paths to fulfill the responsibilities and several to fail it. I am therefore much less trusting of having a small group of the same fallible humans make the decision for me than were I to make it myself.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pmSeth II–
I’m actually with you on post post #163. Quite frankly, I think the gov’t is entirely too involved in telling folks how to live their lives.
For example, if someone wants to sit at home and spend their days taking bong hits or injecting meth, that’s their choice. The gov’t should only step in when that person, say, gets behind the wheel of a car.
As a smoker, I have zero issues with ordinances that tell me where I can or cannot smoke. Why? Because my rights end where someone else’s begins.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:16 pmYes. Eliminate the Payroll Tax.
Why is this even in question?
Why isn’t it part of the Democrat Agenda?
There is no better way to Lower Taxes for the Poor.
Can ANYONE explain why the Democrats don’t push for this???
September 19th, 2006 at 2:18 pmUnholy Moses – #161
This is pretty much exactly why libertarians prefer small government. We don’t trust human nature enough to give a small group of humans enough power to ruin our lives in so many ways. Pretty much all humans are corruptable. We can’t expect an entire Congress of Ghandis to keep our best interests in mind.
Even a libertarian model government has powers that can harm its people (military, currency, etc.), but those are powers that simply wouldn’t exist if pushed to the individual level. If each person were individually responsible for the defense of the country, or if each family (or even town) had their own currency, society couldn’t function at all. There would probably be enough bickering about those few government powers to keep a Congress busy at least half-time.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:18 pmUnholy Moses – 164:
I haven’t fully committed to drug legalization, but I’m definitely leaning that direction in the same way you state. However, by the same token of that person making their choice, I believe the consequences are their responsibility. I certainly don’t advocate letting such a druggie starve to death or die of an OD when a simple adrenaline stab to the heart (!!!) might save him. But I cannot justify having the government provide ANY comforts because he chooses not to attain them for himself.
Even as a non-smoker I was a little leery of my town’s anti-smoking ordinance. I definitely believe my rights end where another’s begins, but I felt that such an ordinance was denying proprietors their right to allow otherwise legal activities in their establishment. Like drug laws, I’m not incredibly passionate about smoking ordinances (probably because I personally benefit from them), but am still a little uneasy about the higher implications regarding personal rights.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:30 pm[...] read more | digg story [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 2:50 pm[...] Congelar as emissões de CO2, proposta de Al Gore na NYU A partir daà começar a reduzir. Ler o discurso completo. [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 3:52 pm[...] In his latest major speech, Gore hit two of my pet issues squarely on the nose: domestic payroll taxes and emissions taxes.  This man should be president. [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 3:54 pmunvelievable – I love the comment about not knowing REALITY – pot meet kettle.
Comment by unbelievable tool — September 18, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
.
Wow… did you think that up all by yourself? Einstein, aside from the cliche and typos, you still have NOTHING.
I bet you’re just 4 letters away from getting banned…
September 19th, 2006 at 4:51 pmOf course, if this shift of taxation from production to pollution actually suceeded in accomplishing its objective then you would have no pollution and no tax revenues. The only persons who could embrace this plan would do so knowing from the start that it is doomed to fail. Simple logic.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:17 pmSimple logic.
Comment by Don McCallum — September 19, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Not really. You actually think there ever would be ‘no pollution’? Never taken chemistry have you?
Besides, the brilliant part of being a progressive is that if you see that pollution has decreased, and therefore your revenues, then you once again review and amend your policy… Welcome to real logic.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:40 pmSo then if tax rates are going to increase to account for decreases in pollution (and ensure at least revenue neutrality), what is the incentive for decreasing pollution in the long term? If everybody just said, “screw it, we’ll just continue to pay the same taxes for the same pollution,” then pollution wouldn’t decrease.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:55 pmFurthermore, all taxes levied against producers are ultimately paid by the end users. I know many of you think it’s an evil capitalist plot to avoid taxes, but the truth is that it doesn’t work any other way. The highest generators of CO2 are automobiles and electricity production, IIRC. You’re very thrilled that a certain segment of society would be relieved of the payroll tax burden. Unfortunately, this same segment would probably be the one most impacted, as a percentage of their income, when paying for gas or electricity.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:21 pmIf the Dem’s don’t select this guy as their nominee for 2008, they deserve to lose! No one else in the field comes close to his gravitas which gives him a built-in ability to withstand much of the mud that the GOP and their accomplices in the right-wing media will be launching at whoever is the Dem’s nominee!
September 20th, 2006 at 12:33 amJust a comment for the many who have questioned how SS and Medicare would be funded if we replace payroll taxes (FICA) as Gore has proposed in his outstanding speech.
Since 1986, FICA has been hijacked to drain $1.8 trillion from working people (and $400M more every day) above and beyond what is needed to pay for SS and Medicare. This money is stolen. That is, it is placed in a ‘trust fund’ that ‘loans’ money to the rest of the government. But since the borrowing is not counted as part of the deficit, the debt is not acknowledged. Thus the arrangement is indistinguishable from a regressive income tax that shifts another 25-30% of the general fund expenses (e.g., Iraq, interest payments) off of wealth taxes and onto wage taxes.
Thus the $1.8 trillion trust fund is only a moral obligation, but the obligation is not recognized or accepted by those with sufficient wealth to make good on it. Gore tried to crystallize political support for the trust fund with his ‘lockbox’, but that did not take.
We have no way to pay for boomer SS and Medicare needs, except general operating revenues (e.g., carbon tax revenues).
The trust fund system, while rational in an ideal world, is not politically practical in our country today. I would rather eliminate the FICA trust fund system than see it abused to steal $400M per day from working people. Moynihan, one of the architects of the trust fund system, came to the same conclusion in the late 1990s: that Greenspan and his ilk had abused his idealism and duped him into accepting a regressive tax system in this country, disguised as a social program.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:10 amYay Mr. Gore! Tax consumption, not production.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:12 amI like Al Gore, and I’d vote for him (again), but I’m not so sure about this proposal. It sounds a bit oversimplified. Further, I personally don’t mind paying taxes at all…if everyone is paying them, and the tax money is used well. It drives me nuts that these millionaires pay next to nothing in taxes, while middle-class families give the government thousands of dollars every years…and then we send that money over to fight in Iraq or to (over)pay certain companies to “rebuild” Iraq (which has clearly been very successful). I’d personally favor a flat tax that you can’t get out of – everyone (all businesses and individuals) has to put in 10% of their income (or whatever would make the revenue work out), and that’s it. No deductions, no hiding your money in other property, no exemptions.
I’m happy to pay my taxes if it means my kids get to go to good schools and our country is safe.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:49 pmAl Gore has got to be kidding! Another one of his blurbed out pipe dreams that he decided the rest of the world should hear… I’m embarassed that he claims he’s a Democrat! Boy, since when did the man who “invented the internet” come up with such short term ideas? If the Democratic party nominates this idiot, they will have completely lose their image, their respect in Washington, and most of their educated voters. Go for the Green, Gore!
September 21st, 2006 at 10:15 amI fogot about the “Invented the Internet” comment. Everytime I am reminded about it I realize the people who still voted for him brought us close to having a lunatic in office. I cannot image what trouble we would be in if he was in office for 9/11.
And some of the moon-bats would vote for him again. Please, Please, Please make him the DNC nomination.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:28 pmThe proposal is a sure way to get industry and jobs to move offshore to escape pollution taxes. Of course we need more money to take care of the unemployed as a result of this proposal. Way to go Al thinking out of the box, way out.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pmThere has been NO conclusive proof that humans have caused global warming. The activities of the sun, or the lack of, among other NATURAL causes affect the climate. Global warming is a scietific issue, not a political one, but the Democrats have made it a political issue. But, some people are so easily brainwashed. Why is it, one doesn’t hear from politicians the natural causes of global warming? There are many natural causes. Do some research and get FACTS instead of listening to these DINGBAT politicians.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:56 amKathy
I hope ALGORE runs in 2008… To get some of the lard off his big ass!
September 25th, 2006 at 7:05 pm