Gore tells GOP deniers they’re victims of ‘the Bernie Madoffs of global warming.’
Gore tells GOP deniers they’re victims of ‘the Bernie Madoffs of global warming.’
Vice President Al Gore, testifying to Congress, told GOP global warming deniers that they are the victims of “the Bernie Madoffs of global warming.” After Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) mocked global warming as being responsible for the woes of the Dallas Cowboys, Gore said that he and other climate change deniers have been receiving bad information. He pointed out that a front-page story in today’s New York Times reveals that the largest corporate polluters in the United States censored their climate scientists in 1995:
The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, “What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it.” Then, these large polluters committed a massive fraud far larger than Bernie Madoff’s fraud. They are the Bernie Madoffs of global warming. They ordered the censoring and removal of the scientific review that they themselves conducted, and like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money.
Watch it:
Gore concluded, “These corporations ought to apologize to the American people for conducting a massive fraud for the last 14 years.”
Transcript:
BARTON: I was somewhat taken aback, Mr. Vice President, by the list of current environmental problems contributed to global warming. You did miss a few, though. the dallas cowboys have not won a playoff game in 10 years. You didn’t mention that. And you also, as Mr. Markey pointed out to me, the New England Patriots did not make the Super Bowl. I would add those to the list of problems you enumerated.
…
GORE: Congressman Barton, I want to address the point you made about the science. I do not question your sincerity for one moment.
BARTON: And I do not question yours, so we are equal on that.
GORE: Thank you. I believe it is important to look at the sources of the science that we rely on. With all due respect, I believe that you have relied on people you have trusted who have given you bad information. I do not blame the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff, but he gave them bad information.
BARTON: I have never talked to Bernie Madoff.
GORE: I’m not saying that you have, but he gave them that information and committed a massive fraud that ended up hurting most of all the people who trusted him. Senator Warner made reference in his opening statement to the story on the front page of the New York Times this morning, absolutely incredible. The largest corporate carbon polluters in America, 14 years ago, asked their own people to conduct a review of all of this science. And their own people told them, “What the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it.” Then, these large polluters committed a massive fraud far larger than Bernie Madoff’s fraud. They are the Bernie Madoffs of global warming. They ordered the censoring and removal of the scientific review that they themselves conducted, and like Bernie Madoff, they lied to the people who trusted them in order to make money. And the CEO of the largest . . .
BARTON: I will stipulate that CO2 concentrations are going up. there is no debate about that. there — they are about 380 parts per million and they’re going to rise to about 500 parts per million in the next 50 to 100 years. I will stipulate that. Now, the consequences of that, and that is because of man-made CO2, I think are debatable. I do not know about the scientific peer review that you just talked about, but if somebody lied about something 14 years ago, I am sure Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey will conduct am investigation oversight hearing into that. My question to you was about the cost of the allowance system. How are we gonna to pay for it? How many jobs are we going to lose? if you’ve got information about something that happened 14 years ago, I am sure, again, our chairman and subcommittee chairman — Mr. Stupak, who’s the oversight subcommittee chairman — will look at it. But answer the question about costs, please.
GORE: It is on the front page of the New York Times today, by Andrew Revkin. They themselves conducted review and found a science about it’s valid. And to the point you made a moment ago: they verified in their own studies that man-made global warming is raising temperatures and causing this crisis. Like Bernie Madoff, and they lied about it in order to make money. And they themselves profited. The ceo of the largest got a onetime payment of $400 million. Now, again, those who have trusted them and believed them are due an apology. These corporations ought to apologize to the American people for conducting a massive fraud for the last 14 years.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
These corporations ought to apologize to the American people for conducting a massive fraud for the last 14 years.
Hit ‘em where it counts, make them pay taxes.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:55 pmgo Al Go; you’re getting better in your mature days; we need you to bring this age of greed and corruption to a reckoning before we can’t even do anything about it.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pmal gore owns three homes , eats lots of meat and uses a private jet to move from one bathroom in his compound to another. he flushes two toilets for both a number 1 and 2.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pmSince cap and trade plans in the US would tend to end up with special deals for certain companies, it will turn out to be a huge source of corporate welfare.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/To-get-votes-Waxman-offers-cap-and-trade-breaks_04_24-43592342.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/132755.html
April 24th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
manbearpig is very real.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:15 pmand his electricity bill is ucking huge!!!! as a right winger though, i pass on the the question, “is al gore’s energy consumption actually lower than average for his income bracket and the size of his home(s)?”
April 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pmBarton of Texas was using a publication of Craig Idso a shill for Exxon to disprove the link between CO2 and global warming. My question is what do republicans choose to believe people like Idso over the rest of the scientific community. It is almost like they have something against real science on every issue which I personally find disturbing.
I tip my hat to Gore.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pmSomeone should point out to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) that the Dallas Cowboys’ woes have mostly been self-induced by the megalomania ownership of the team.
And Jerry Jones purchased the Cowboys via his oil fortune.
Deniers support each other no matter what lies need to be told.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:19 pmI disagree with Gore when he says that, “GOP deniers (are) victims of ‘the Bernie Madoffs of global warming.’” they are not victims of this behavior. They are eyes-wide-open, eager, and willing cohorts in this behavior and deception.
Remember, Republican Rule #1: Greed at any cost!
April 24th, 2009 at 3:20 pmMy god Al Gore got some Bill Clinton vs Chris Wallace in him.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pmRefreshing.
Granted, neoparody, that Al Gore has some decidedly non-green methods, but that is far outweighed by the good work he has done in the last ten years. Saying that his argument is invalid because of his personal lifestyle is a logical fallacy (ad hominem). Your statement does not mean anything to anyone with more than half a brain.
Facts are facts, and I trust scientists over corporate CEO’s seven days out of the week. Too bad these GOP politicians are too lobby- and bribe-driven to know what facts are anymore.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pmWhen you don’t “believe” in science and consider education to be something elitists enjoy it is easy to follow the junk scientists. Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party circa 2009.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pmIf carbon offsets are ever mandated, Al Gore stands to rake in huge amounts of money using his investment firm that he started with David Blood (Blood and Gore, ha ha).
April 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pmamish_edison Says:
I disagree with Gore when he says that, “GOP deniers (are) victims of ‘the Bernie Madoffs of global warming.’”
Republicans? Victims of greed. Ha, ha, it is to laugh. They bought into it and are milking it for all they can, while they can.
At the total expense of the earth.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pmI still love President Gore. Too bad he wasn’t able to serve his term(s) in office.
PEACE
April 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pmYoungSloshee,
But Al Gore is destroying the planet!!!
He might want to take some tips from Ed Begley Jr and stop being such a hypocrite.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pmWhy is it that when Democratic Presidents (or almost Presidents) retire from the political arena they gravitate towards humanitarian programs? And their Republican counterparts just retire?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pmAnd why is it that Republicans (and their trolls) insist on indulging in hyperbole and fear mongering to try and get their agenda across?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pmAlejandro Says:
But Al Gore is destroying the planet!!!
He might want to take some tips from Ed Begley Jr and stop being such a hypocrite.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
_________
Why?
How does Al Gore’s electric bill alter the widespread consensus among climatologists as to the anthropoegenic contribution to the rise in global mean temperatures since 1750?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pmTexas seems to have an unlimited abundance of idiots.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmHoodathunktick Says:
And why is it that Republicans (and their trolls) insist on indulging in hyperbole and fear mongering to try and get their agenda across?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
___________
That IS their agenda. Duh!
April 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmOne important difference: Madoff’s victims aren’t hurting anyone, while the global warming deniers are screwing it up for everyone.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says: That IS their agenda. Duh!
I know that but why? Why do they hate themselves so much that they want everyone else to suffer?
Oops, sort of answered my own question.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pmHow much money is Al making these days? Oh, he’s approaching a billion dollar net worth? And what does he do exactly? Oh, scares the $&@# out of people by claiming that if he can’t climate control the entire earth we’re are all going to die. Thanks Al, but I’ll continue to shop at Wal-Mart. at least I’ll get something of value there. BTW, he looks like crap.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pmObviously the rapture will occur when TX secedes from the union.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pmAlejandro Says:
If carbon offsets are ever mandated, Al Gore stands to rake in huge amounts of money using his investment firm that he started with David Blood (Blood and Gore, ha ha).
Why so anti-capitalist Alejandro?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pmI know I would be quite rapturous should that ever happen.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pmAl Gore is human, right? And he produces much more CO2 than the average human, right?
How much of a capitalist are you if you make money off of government mandates?
The greenest thing to do would be to destroy the house and move into a solar powered mud hut. I’m thuper therial.
He also doesn’t need to fly in private jets. Coach would be much more efficient.
And I am not a party of anything.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pmdrew3rd Says:
How much money is Al making these days? Oh, he’s approaching a billion dollar net worth? And what does he do exactly? Oh, scares the $&@# out of people by claiming that if he can’t climate control the entire earth we’re are all going to die. Thanks Al, but I’ll continue to shop at Wal-Mart. at least I’ll get something of value there. BTW, he looks like crap.
LOL…what a baby!!! Reeeeaaaalll scathing dig at Gore’s appearance. PUH-PUH-PUH-THET-ICK
April 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pmAlejandro Says:
How much of a capitalist are you if you make money off of government mandates?
Ask the oil companies receiving government subsidies.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pmIf the government forces people to buy my products (like insurance) how much of a capitalist am I?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:47 pmOf course oil companies should not get one dime from the government.
It’s not really analogous because no one is forcing people to buy oil.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pmAlejandro Says:
Tweedster Says:
Ask the oil companies receiving government subsidies.
Of course oil companies should not get one dime from the government.
It’s not really analogous because no one is forcing people to buy oil.
Right. Nobody is forced to buy oil.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pmYou may be “forced” by circumstance, but not by the threat of violence. The oil company isn’t going to send men to your house to kidnap you and lock you in a cage.
In the case of carbon indulgences, you could avoid them by never emitting CO2, but who can go through life like that? But if they were mandated and you emit CO2 and don’t pay the indulgence, eventually armed men will come to take you away.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pmTweedster Says:
Right. Nobody is forced to buy oil.
Tweedster, might I add: Nobody is forced to buy oil and the oil industry isn’t engaging in price gouging and Cheney’s energy task force was designed for the protection of We the People and the “war” in Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
PEACE
April 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pmspencers butterfly mom,
Who forces you to buy oil products?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pmThe car companies can also pay for the destruction of the inner city and intra city rail lines, who were dismantled after WWII. This day had to come, will people be using cars 50 years from now? It is almost inconceivable, but between economic crisis, global warming, increasing difficulty in finding and transporting oil from unstable areas of the world, you have to believe the methods of transportation are going very different than what we see today. A lot of distruption in society is coming, to me it is hopeful to have the change in Washington we are seeing since the election. But the noise we hear from the right wing shows their fear about the coming changes. Fear is what happens when the narrow minded and the stupid are confronted with new situations. This fear makes those people dangerous.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pmAlejandro Says:
Al Gore is human, right? And he produces much more CO2 than the average human, right?
April 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
_____________
So? So do you.
Assuming you are a resident of the United States, even if you were a homeless Buddhist monk who only visited organic vegetarian soup kitchens, your annual carbon footprint is going to be at least twice that of the average human being.
I ask again, how does Al Gore’s electric bill alter the 95% confidence shared by a broad consensus of climatologists that human activities are negatively impacting the climate?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pmGore, Waxman, et. al are on board for the cap and trade tax that, until recently, wouldn’t have affected households much, if at all ($79?). But …
MIT professor John Reilly recently admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade’s cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be “$800 per household”, he wrote. “I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet.”
While $800 is significantly more than Reilly’s original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama’s middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.
Ouch.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pmAlejandro Says:
But if they were mandated and you emit CO2 and don’t pay the indulgence, eventually armed men will come to take you away.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
__________
And you’re basing this on what?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pmVibrioCocci Says:
While $800 is significantly more than Reilly’s original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama’s middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
___________
Proof of this allegation?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm$215? That’s the tax cut? That’s not even noticeable. Reminds me of the Bush “tax cut” that I also didn’t notice any benefit.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pmSure.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm???
Tell me what happens when you break “the law.”
Tell me what happens when you politely refuse to comply with government intervention into your life.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pmAlejandro Says:
$215? That’s the tax cut? That’s not even noticeable. Reminds me of the Bush “tax cut” that I also didn’t notice any benefit.
Actually, that’s one additional tax, not a tax cut. And that number, $215, is not correct.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmOh so the tax cut doesn’t even amount to $215. Wow, Obama, thanks for nothing.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmI like the idea that being a human on this planet has no cost. Come on, we all do it. The Republicans are the first to say, life isn’t free, you have to pay to play.
But what happens when throwing dollars at a problem does not get the attention of the source of the problem? Where will the big dollar folk be when the earth says up yours? Stuffing dollars in sand bags?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pmAlejandro Says:
spencers butterfly mom,
Who forces you to buy oil products?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
___________
Every single company that uses plastic in their product, packaging, or production. Every food producer that uses oil-derived fertilizers and oil-driven tractors. Every retailer selling products imported via container ships or transported via trucks or trains. Every manufacturer using raw materials imported via container ships or transferred from domestic mines using oil-powered vehicles.
The only way to avoid buying or using products that are in any way related to oil is to die. And even then your burial or cremation options are strongly constrained, as embalming fluid is often produced from natural gas or coal gas.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pmAlejandro Says:
Tweedster Says:
Right. Nobody is forced to buy oil.
You may be “forced” by circumstance, but not by the threat of violence. The oil company isn’t going to send men to your house to kidnap you and lock you in a cage.
In the case of carbon indulgences, you could avoid them by never emitting CO2, but who can go through life like that? But if they were mandated and you emit CO2 and don’t pay the indulgence, eventually armed men will come to take you away.
Wildly speculative trash.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pmTrue, it’s not easy to avoid. But it is possible, and the oil companies don’t threaten to lock you up for avoiding it.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pmAlejandro Says:
True, it’s not easy to avoid. But it is possible, and the oil companies don’t threaten to lock you up for avoiding it.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
___________
Who has threatened to lock you up? I again ask you to point to a provision that states that anyone will be locked up for not participating in cap-and-trade.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:25 pmVibrioCocci Says:
In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.
How?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pmHow speculative is it?
Does all Gore want mandatory carbon offsets? Mandatory means that you must comply or else. What happens when you don’t comply? Men with guns kidnap you and put you in a cage.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pmIf there is not threat to lock me up, then how can it be called “mandatory”? If I can just ignore it, then why is the government even bothering? The government is in the business of force. That’s it’s currency. That’s what it is. That’s what it does.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
April 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm— George Washington
I don’t know, even the wild assed Republican meme of $3,900 sounds a lot better than dead.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pmDoes all Gore want mandatory carbon offsets? Mandatory means that you must comply or else. What happens when you don’t comply? Men with guns kidnap you and put you in a cage.
Someone really needs to put down their Gameboy.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pmAlejandro:
Does all Gore want mandatory carbon offsets? Mandatory means that you must comply or else. What happens when you don’t comply? Men with guns kidnap you and put you in a cage.
It is also mandatory to have auto-insurance. It is not a jailable offense.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pmWhat’s the penalty?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pm“Tweedster Says:
VibrioCocci Says: In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.
How?”
From the original article:
Estimated cost: $3,128 + $800 = $3,928.00
April 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pmAlejandro Says:
If there is not threat to lock me up, then how can it be called “mandatory”? If I can just ignore it, then why is the government even bothering? The government is in the business of force. That’s it’s currency. That’s what it is. That’s what it does.
Funny how Alejandro believes that those who side with the vast majority of scientific are acting hysterically with all the paranoia he has displayed.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pmSo it’s paranoid to describe the government in the exact same way that George Washington did?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pmVibrioCocci Says:
The $800 paid annually per household is merely the “cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases],” Reilly wrote. “So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy.”
This seems to detail voluntary actions made by homeowners. How do you relate this to the tax code?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pmI’m still trying to figure out how my energy costs will rise by 3-4k. I might spend ~800 a year electricity and natural gas combined, and maybe another ~300 on gas (I don’t drive much). So, my energy costs would have to triple to hit close to those numbers…
April 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pmAlejandro Says:
Tweedster Says:
Alejandro:
Does all Gore want mandatory carbon offsets? Mandatory means that you must comply or else. What happens when you don’t comply? Men with guns kidnap you and put you in a cage.
It is also mandatory to have auto-insurance. It is not a jailable offense.
What’s the penalty?
I believe a fine, with the possibility of a suspended driver’s license until proof of insurance is gained.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pmAlejandro Says:
If there is not threat to lock me up, then how can it be called “mandatory”? If I can just ignore it, then why is the government even bothering?
This is really what we have come to in this country. People who believe the only way should do things is when they are physically forced to do so.
The idea of doing something for the good of the country or mankind is gone.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pmUnfortunately, the repeated statement that people who earn less than $250,000 per year will not pay additional taxes is wrong based just on cap and trade alone.
A $3,900 tax is a substantial amount of money for most Americans to part with.
Well, it is for me anyway.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pmWhat happens when I don’t recognize the authority of the state to fine me or prevent me from driving?
As in, what happens when I refuse to pay the fine and continue to drive without a license?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pmAmerica, we do things at the point of a gun. Pay attention, world, this is reality. If you aren’t going to be shot or tortured for doing it, thumb your nose.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pmAlejandro:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
– George Washington
It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pmGeorge Washington
Sorry, quadruple.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pmWe’ve also come to the point where people believe that the only way to get something done is to force people to do it or to pay for it.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pmAlejandro Says:
If there is not threat to lock me up, then how can it be called “mandatory”?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
____________
You do realize that the cap-and-trade policy is for companies, not private citizens, right?
Which oil company are you, exactly? Exxon-Mobil? Royal Dutch Shell? BP?
It’d explain your science denial, anyhow…
April 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pmAlejandro Says: As in, what happens when I refuse to pay the fine and continue to drive without a license?
You become an outlaw and by your own logic a shoot on sight order should follow.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pmAlejandro Says:
What happens when I don’t recognize the authority of the state to fine me or prevent me from driving?
As in, what happens when I refuse to pay the fine and continue to drive without a license?
Men with guns wouldn’t come to your house to put you in a cage.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pmAlejandro Says: We’ve also come to the point where people believe that the only way to get something done is to force people to do it or to pay for it.
Actually, it is only the Quisling Quarter who have reached this point. And I think they should get what they ask for.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:45 pmJust because I agree with Washington’s description of government as nothing but force doesn’t mean I agree that it’s a Free Government or that I am obligated to it in any way.
What if I ran a company that refused to obey? What would happen to me?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pmApril 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
What if I ran a company that refused to obey?
Other than you would be actively contributing to the further decline of American principles? Even accepting the fantasy you could run a company I would say you would spend a great deal of time in a facility where your fantasies wouldn’t be your own.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:49 pmWhat’s the Quisling Quarter? Is it some progressive movement to grow the size and scope of the federal government thereby forcing people to pay for their programs and to participate in them?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pmAlejandro Says: What’s the Quisling Quarter?
Did you have a nice nap in History class?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pmYou just don’t want to admit that your noble program to better humanity and the lives of children around the world involves force through the threat of violence.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pmWell, I just googled it and the top hit was this website, so I don’t think this is any kind of mainstream history. So I guess that it’s a progressive movement or something.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pmAlejandro Says: You just don’t want to admit that your noble program to better humanity and the lives of children around the world involves force through the threat of violence.
Actually, I still think you slept through history class.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pmGood one.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pmWas it a nice nap?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pmAlejandro Says:
What if I ran a company that refused to obey? What would happen to me?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
_________
You mean if you refused to pay corporate taxes? You would face fines, lawsuits, and possible revocation of applicable permits to do business in the United States. I’m sure your competition would not miss you one iota and be happy to absorb your former customers.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Hit ‘em where it counts, make them pay taxes.”
Watch them move all of their operations overseas and Americans lose their jobs.
It’s too late. Many jobs and operations have long ago left the country. Not only that, many companies use offshore companies to circumvent paying any taxes in America. The rich make the rules so the rich can get richer. This has been the case and will be the case in the future regardless if there is a cap and trade system or not.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pmoooo, Troll Central is sending in the second team. S’matter tracy, figure Alejandro is in over his head?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pmTracy, did you buy stocks in one of those other companies?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:58 pmTracy__5 Says:
They will just pass he cost on to the consumer. That of course may no happen if you are willing to go back to the 1970s and the crap days of price controls.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
___________
Some might – sure. That’s entirely possible. But others may not, choosing to invest in green energy generation, lowering their long-term energy costs as well as their carbon tax bill. You are more than welcome to take your business to the latter type of company. That’s how capitalism works, see.
Or do you not believe in the free market anymore?
April 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pmNew tactic, Alejandro has gotten weird so tracy trys to bring the distraction back. Cap and trade costs are for everyone. Sort of like Trix, Tracy.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pmThese denier pinheads and conspiracy freaks are all over the web.
First they said “There’s no such thing as global warming.”
Now they say “Ok. There is global warming but the 6.5 billion humans on the planet have NOTHING to do with it.”
I think that it might make more sense to listen to the climatologists.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pmThey are smart people with access to the data who have spent their careers studying this issue.
They are far more likely to know what they are talking about than a bunch of ideologically driven internet trolls who are primarily motivated by their irrelevant hatred of Al Gore.
Tracy__5 Says:
Why not use a carrot in the form of tax cuts instead of a stick like a new tax? We all know which one companies will choose regardless of what type of energy the produce.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
___________
Yes – companies will choose to keep doing what they’re doing. The point of all this is to make a change in the status quo, not reinforce it.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pmTag team trolls. Any posters want to pick up the gauntlet and smack the new one?
April 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pmAlejandro Says:
Tweedster Says:
Alejandro Says:
What happens when I don’t recognize the authority of the state to fine me or prevent me from driving?
As in, what happens when I refuse to pay the fine and continue to drive without a license?
Men with guns wouldn’t come to your house to put you in a cage.
You are wrong, sir.
You are wrong sir. If you were to be driving and were pulled over and arrested for driving with a suspended license, you would not be at your house.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pmTracy__5 Says:
In a free market sticks rarely work and most of the time backfire.
What does this mean?
April 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Cap and trade costs are for everyone.”
Not according to chiroptera toasterhead.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
___________
They’ll be a lot less for companies that reduce their CO2 production.
On the other side of the coin, wanna guess who pays the costs for land degradation, desertification, migration of tropical diseases, and rising sea levels?
Hint: Everyone.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:17 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Many jobs and operations have long ago left the country.”
Maybe if our corporate tax rates were more in line with the Europeans thay just might come back and not need to go offshore.
Maybe if America’s social network was as strong as some European countries America wouldn’t have such a pitiful health care system.
Maybe if America’s banking laws were more in tune with European banking laws the housing bubble wouldn’t have started.
Maybe if corporations treated other countries with the respect expected in America then it wouldn’t have been profitable to go offshore.
Maybe if the corporations actually paid the taxes they were supposed to the economy wouldn’t be in the crapper.
Lots of maybe’s but blaming high corporate tax rates or reducing them is not going to solve the issues plaguing America today.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:19 pmTracy__5 Says:
The point of all this is to make a change in the status quo, not reinforce it.”
In a free market sticks rarely work and most of the time backfire.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
___________
Perhaps. That’s why it’s a good thing that free markets only exist in econ 101 textbooks and neocon wet dreams.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pmCorporations aren’t individuals.
.
Alejandro Says:
You just don’t want to admit that your noble program to better humanity and the lives of children around the world involves force through the threat of violence.
So does law enforcement. Are you saying we’d be better off if there were no law enforcement?
.
Tracy__5 Says:
“That’s entirely possible. But others may not, choosing to invest in green energy generation, lowering their long-term energy costs as well as their carbon tax bill.”
Why not use a carrot in the form of tax cuts
That would be a great idea, except that carrot barrel is empty at this point. When corporations are already paying incredibly low taxes, there’s nowhere left to go.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
In a free market sticks rarely work and most of the time backfire.
That’s like saying “in a free society, law enforcement rarely works and most of the time backfires.” You merely advocate economic anarchy. Anarchy inevitably fails.
Wingnuts are usually all for law and order, with only the glaring exception of laws that impact the behavior of corporations. Then all of a sudden they’re crying about liberty and tyranny. But the fact is, there’s no difference between a reasonable regulation and any other reasonable law. The only reason anybody would have such exceptional thinking is if they are acting as apologist shills for economic criminals.
I clicked into this thread vaguely thinking, “aw Gore shut up before you go all Nader on us and push your analogies until they backlash,” but Alejandro and Tracy are starting to convince me he that may have a point.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pmTracy__5 Says:
In a free market non regulation rarely works and most of the times backfire.
I fixed you post Tracy__5. Unfettered free markets have not worked as has been recently proven.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pmElBruce Says:
Corporations aren’t individuals.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
____________
Technically, they are, according to SCOTUS Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pmTracy__5 Says:
move their operations overseas where in many cases there are few if any environmental regulations.
This is a huge problem. All companies should operate on the same set of regulations. If the oil industry would be allowed to operate in the US as it does in, say Nigeria (pick any third world country with oil), there would be a revolt against these companies. But, heck, who gives a shit about their environment.
It’s a none level playing field that is responsible for the demise of the manufacturing industry in America.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pmTracy__5 Says:
The better incentives for companies to reduce their CO2 production is to give tax incentives NOT the threat of a fine for exceeding their alloted output quantity.
What are you worried about? That they’ll cheat? That their CEO’s will get busted when they do? I’m not worried about that. Why are you?
.
Tracy__5 Says:
Last time I looked the European banks were doing any better than ours including their economies.
… mainly because they had invested in ours.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
This is a huge problem. All companies should operate on the same set of regulations. If the oil industry would be allowed to operate in the US as it does in, say Nigeria (pick any third world country with oil), there would be a revolt against these companies. But, heck, who gives a shit about their environment.
It’s a none level playing field that is responsible for the demise of the manufacturing industry in America.
Which brings us to what’s wrong with “free trade” as it has been put forth so far. I mean, if we really wanted to bring things down to a level playing field, we’d scrap all child labor laws, as well as all laws against bribing public officials, along with a million others. And yet, we seem to be doing OK on the whole. So maybe instead of bringing our standards down, we should be thinking about what can be done to bring their standards up.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pmTracy__5 Says:
#111
“Corporations aren’t individuals.”
Corporation are made up of thousands of individuals who have jobs and are just as much an American as you or I.
So, one could reason that you are a cell?
April 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pmTracy__5 Says:
“So, one could reason that you are a cell?”
I guess so….just as you are.
Thank you.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:50 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
Technically, they are, according to SCOTUS Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co.
I’ll believe that when I see an entire corporation get thrown in jail.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
Low taxes? In this country? Are you insane? Do you know what the U.S. corporate tax rate is compared to those countries in the EU?
Do you know how many exemptions and loopholes they have available to them? As in, how much they actually pay as opposed to how much they’re theoretically supposed to pay.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
Fines and new taxes, which is what were are talking about are different than standard regulations and you should know that. I am suprised that your are trying to equate the two.
You guys claim that regulations are punitive laws all the time. If I accept the general conservative/libertarian proposition that all laws, taxes and regulations should be viewed as restrictions on liberty, then it’s clear to see that there are many such restrictions (such as the criminalization of murder or theft) which we all accept as reasonable, and in which fact necessary to maintain an orderly, developed society.
What you haven’t explained is what makes restrictions on corporations such a special case – why they deserve so much more liberty than you, I or any other individual.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
#118
“What are you worried about? That they’ll cheat?”
No that they will move their operations overseas because of the threat of a fine.
See my response to livelongandprosper, above.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:51 pmTracy__5 Says:
Corporation are made up of thousands of individuals who have jobs and are just as much an American as you or I.
Tweedster Says:
So, one could reason that you are a cell?
Just for the sake of conceptualization moving forward, let’s discard that analogy right now; it’s too limited for the level of discourse that I suspect we’re about to hit.
Instead, I propose the following working definition: a corporation is a specialized clustered network of social contracts taking place between employees, investors and consumers.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pmAlejandro, if you don’t do what the law says, the government will take some of those Federal Reserve Notes out of your possession.
You know, the ones they printed.
Do you believe you have the inalienable right to keep their property?
Because someone gave them to you?
If you were foolish enough to accept those pieces of paper for your work, made by a government whose authority you don’t recognize, how stupid are you?
And if the utility companies or most retail stores insist you give them those pieces of paper, why, no one is forcing you to do business with them, are you?
Once you accept those pieces of paper, once you use them, you have agreed to abide by their rules of use.
After all, their value is not backed by anything physical: their value is solely generated by government action, maintaining the peace, policing economic action, take andgiving those pieces of paper to increase stability and prosperity. It’sthatreliability and control alone that makes them useful.
And most of the time, all they ask of you when you fail to obey one of their regulations is some of their own back.
You know, in medieval Iceland, when a man was found guilty of a crime, he was declared an outlaw. And that meant, for a culture without a police force, that anyone could take that man’s property, injure him or kill him, and there would be no legal penalty. No coercive government action at all, but quite effective.
Would you prefer that? If you defied the government,then they would publish in the newspaper that your life and property would no longer be under government protection? Wouldn’t that be a nice Heinleinian solution?
It really takes American idiots to confuse libertarian fantasy with the actual state of nature. What I described is the way a vast portion of our fellow humans live: you only have what you can hold onto, and the predators for the most part feed upon you.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:14 pmTracy__5 Says:
If the corporate taxe rate was lower the tax code could be simplified so that there would be no need to have those loopholes and exemptions.
I’d be all for that. But then politicians on both sides wouldn’t be able to stay employed by keeping folks like you and me at each other’s throats over the confusion about what the real corporate tax rate is.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:32 pmBernie Madoff investors and the GOP – hmmmmm. The GOP is uninformed just like the investors but the GOP are suffering from stockholm syndrome as well!
April 24th, 2009 at 6:48 pmI laugh at the idiots…who go to church…at the…
Good Hope of the Alpha Bore Church of Latter Day Idiots.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:14 pmElBruce Says:
So maybe instead of bringing our standards down, we should be thinking about what can be done to bring their standards up.
Yes ElBruce, I didn’t mean to imply that our standards should be reduced. And by standards, I mean if a company in the US has to operate by certain regulations here, why can they operate with less regulation anywhere else? Huge problem, but in a “Global” economy, it’s insane to have such disparity in operating rules.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:18 pmRealityCheck Says:
I laugh at the idiots…who go to church
Me too. What a waste of time, money and minds.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:20 pmRealityCheck Says:
I laugh at the idiots…who go to church…at the…
Good Hope of the Alpha Bore Church of Latter Day Idiots.
What? Are you trying to insult someone here? Who? About what? Why?
April 24th, 2009 at 8:29 pmO/T – Sorry!
Organized “religion” is an insult! Especially organized Religion that is used to corrupt stupid people to vote for stupid politicians (mainly Republican’ts). That’s an attack on the Spaghetti Monster too – lol!
April 24th, 2009 at 8:59 pmneoparasite is BACK. He cant stay away. He is an addict. He MUST HAVE OUR PITY. He knows he only humliates himself here but with less self respect than any crackwhore who ever lived he still has to, HAS TO, come and beg us to pity him. He cannot live anymore without our pity. Sure he is stupid and pathetic. That is who he is. These qualities define him. He has come to rely on them for his pathetic need for our pity. The stupidest most pathetic creature on the internet. He needs the help of a mental health professional immediatly. So sad, so stupid, so pathetic.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:17 amEugene atrax robustus Debs Says:
neoparasite is BACK.
neoparody hasn’t posted since #6. We’re up to #137 now dude. What, do you have pictures of him plastered on your wall or somthing?
April 25th, 2009 at 2:04 amThanks SitesSesli Sohbet
April 30th, 2009 at 9:02 amSesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
At least some politician is fighting for global warming. Go Gore go.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:22 am