would adopting green tax shift elect Ron Paul?

[ksuguy]

Incredibly bad idea. I know some of you folks from the left wing side of things are all for jumping on the crazy green bandwagon, but this is a terrible idea.

All this global warming stuff is just a convenient excuse for another tyrannical powergrab.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

Global warming is just fear mongering at its best. A pollution tax goes against everything that a free society is supposed to be about and I'm ashamed that a Ron Paul supporter actually suggested it. The lower the taxes the better. The last thing we need is a pollution tax that is immoral and unconstitutional. Ron Paul is not going to shift his policies just because some average joe on a message board tells him to. He has never voted to increase taxes and never will.

 

[idiom]

Kyoto makes CO2 another currency

 

[steph3n]

If this thread is any indication of this forum, I have wasted my time joining and reading.

You have got to be kidding, a green tax, to get more people behind RP. Have you even listened to the man, or understand the grounds on which he stands?

Yeah, that's the ticket; we'll end the IRS & US Income Tax and just give a New Green Tax straight to the UN? For what 150 - 200,000 votes? Like a man, such as Dr. Paul is would ever compromise his principles for few dirty votes.

Come'on Captain Planet, wake up! Why don't you just take 1/2 breaths and save us all.

I'm all mad now, my 1st. post had to be in this thread.

hahahaha don't get depressed man, RP would never do this it is a corporate sham the "carbon tax" they just want to take more greenbacks that is the only reason it is a "green tax"

 

[JDeVriese]

Kyoto makes CO2 another currency

LOL I've never thought of it that way. Politicians would directly contribute to inflation by all the hot air they expel!

-JD

 

[CelestialRender]

Not the worst idea ever, but still not a good one.

First, let's do tort reform and see what happens. Next, the states will decide how to deal with it at the state levels. The federal government has no need to solve this problem.

 

[DrNoZone]

It's very clear from the many knee jerk reactions in this thread that many of you didn't even read the article in the link provided, and if you did you haven't thought it through all the way.

 

[kahvi]

Ok, I wont discuss here if Global Warming the effect of CO2 is real (although the majority of leading scientists of the world agree on it), because we probalby wouldn't get any further here.. so different approach


1. of all, yea, Dr. Paul would never sign something with the word "tax" in it, so that is ruled out. But another very prominent solution for CO2 reduction is the trading of certificates between cooperations, which is already implemented by Europe and several states in the US (California comes to my mind), and is even advocated by free-market think-tanks in the US (Watch "The cooperation" for more, they have a small segment about it).
If anything, I think he should at least say that he supports it on a states-level.

2. I think he should put more emphasis on tax-cuts for people who use renewable energy, which I heard him speaking of once.

3. He already said he would fight against pollution of rivers, and that example could be taken further

I would say those point would make a good fundamental "green"-policy which would scare anyone away, who is really concerend about the environment (After "An Inconviniet Truth" there should be enough potential voters)., Personally I think the government has a place to protect the environment, because it's not one of the primary concerns of cooperations. And if the environment is bad in an area it will turn away potential investors and citizens.

 

[Stoli]

Global warming is just fear mongering at its best. A pollution tax goes against everything that a free society is supposed to be about and I'm ashamed that a Ron Paul supporter actually suggested it. The lower the taxes the better. The last thing we need is a pollution tax that is immoral and unconstitutional. Ron Paul is not going to shift his policies just because some average joe on a message board tells him to. He has never voted to increase taxes and never will.

Two thumbs up!!!

 

[nickcoons]

Should the military pass the hat if they want to build an aircraft carrier?

Absolutely! The opposing question would be, "Should the military be allowed to steal money from people to build an aircraft carrier that they don't want to have built?", which is far more ridiculous.