Juliar betrays australia, destroys our economic future (1 Viewer)

[qawe]

Back on topic.

Lentern:

please explain why we should have a carbon tax (or whatever u want to call it) if we will not make an even noticeable difference to climate change.

i dont kno why this argument isnt being pushed hard enough!

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Back on topic.

Lentern:

please explain why we should have a carbon tax (or whatever u want to call it) if we will not make an even noticeable difference to climate change.

i dont kno why this argument isnt being pushed hard enough!

its got nothing to do with climate change, government just using it as an excuse to push their socialist agenda of wealth redistribution

 

[Blastus]

real capitalists play harvest moon

idk bro their 'get married to only ONE sheila' is way too heteronormative and anti-market for me

surely infinite mutual contracts are better than a single marriage

 

[Lentern]

Back on topic.

Lentern:

please explain why we should have a carbon tax (or whatever u want to call it) if we will not make an even noticeable difference to climate change.

i dont kno why this argument isnt being pushed hard enough!

It will make an an enormous impact upon our carbon footprint, what you've taken as a given there is just, plane wrong. It bears remembering that the ETS that Gillard has brought in might not have bipartisan support but the emission reduction targets do. The only MP's who do not support these carbon emmisions are the nationals and Bob Katter.

 

[Garygaz]

aka there isn't support for compromising the competitiveness of our international trade to reduce emissions. no one wants the current plan, labour has been forced into the corner on this by the greens, who low and behold have finally gotten themselves the perfect parliament to push the agenda of the minority.

you can ramble on about 'our carbon footprint' and our 'moral' obligations, however if you are a realist you should admit that no matter what Australia does on this issue, no noticeable difference is going to be made. as i've said before, the only place being an idealist will get you is with your neck in a noose.

 

[Lentern]

aka there isn't support for compromising the competitiveness of our international trade to reduce emissions. no one wants the current plan, labour has been forced into the corner on this by the greens, who low and behold have finally gotten themselves the perfect parliament to push the agenda of the minority.

you can ramble on about 'our carbon footprint' and our 'moral' obligations, however if you are a realist you should admit that no matter what Australia does on this issue, no noticeable difference is going to be made. as i've said before, the only place being an idealist will get you is with your neck in a noose.

Why then have the coalition committed to the same emmisions reduction targets?

 

[Garygaz]

through methods that don't damage our international competitiveness? promotion of alternate energy sources and scientific research

 

[Lentern]

through methods that don't damage our international competitiveness? promotion of alternate energy sources and scientific research

Direct action is indirect taxation. If you believe there is a pain free way of reducing emmisions you're a retard.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Direct action is indirect taxation. If you believe there is a pain free way of reducing emmisions you're a retard.

or you could cut spending on stupid things than re direct funds

 

[Garygaz]

Direct action is indirect taxation. If you believe there is a pain free way of reducing emmisions you're a retard.

haha yeh because there is a discernible difference between a tax on all businesses and researching cleaner methods of power such as solar, wind and wave power. you still realise that no party came to the election with this shitty attempt at reducing our emissions apart from the greens who aren't a major party for some very major reasons?

you love your straw-man arguments, i never said there was a 'pain free' method of reducing emissions you preposterous anus. all i've said is that the method being chosen is fucking dumb and will make no difference in the real world. this is because i'm not some stupid hippie world loving idealist who cares about feeling good when i go to sleep at night

 

[scuba_steve2121]

we spent over 10 billion on the Iraq and Afghanistan warz not including the billions we sent in aid, (bill still rising obviously)

maybe we could of used those funds for better causes hmm?

 

[Lentern]

haha yeh because there is a discernible difference between a tax on all businesses and researching cleaner methods of power such as solar, wind and wave power. you still realise that no party came to the election with this shitty attempt at reducing our emissions apart from the greens who aren't a major party for some very major reasons?

you love your straw-man arguments, i never said there was a 'pain free' method of reducing emissions you preposterous anus. all i've said is that the method being chosen is fucking dumb and will make no difference in the real world. this is because i'm not some stupid hippie world loving idealist who cares about feeling good when i go to sleep at night

John Howard, Mark Vaile and Kevin Rudd went to the 2007 election with emmisions trading schemes, Bob Brown went with a consumption based tax. Gillard went to the 2010 election promising a carbon pricing mechanism which she said may include an ETS, Tony Abbott went to the election with direct action, ergo the government purchasing carbon offsets on behalf of companies using taxpayer dollars and Bob Brown again ran on a consumption based tax. Warren Truss was the only party leader to rule out a carbon reduction mechanism although he now supports Direct Action.

 

[Lentern]

or you could cut spending on stupid things than re direct funds

Yeah ok but that money is still taxpayer dollars being assigned to reducing emmisions instead of tax breaks.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Yeah ok but that money is still taxpayer dollars being assigned to reducing emmisions instead of tax breaks.

well naturally I don't think the government should spend anything and cut taxes, but given the circumstances if they want to spend money on shit, they need to find room in the budget instead of taxing the people of Australia more

that would of been the responsible thing to do

 

[Lentern]

well naturally I don't think the government should spend anything and cut taxes, but given the circumstances if they want to spend money on shit, they need to find room in the budget instead of taxing the people of Australia more

that would of been the responsible thing to do

Again, that's fine but there isn't a divergence on policy between the coalition and the government there. Both plan to fund Australia's carbon reductions through taxpayer dollars.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Again, that's fine but there isn't a divergence on policy between the coalition and the government there. Both plan to fund Australia's carbon reductions through taxpayer dollars.

well then we come back to the idea that the people on both sides running Australia are stupid, I may vote Liberals but I still fucking hate them, and if voting wasn't compulsory I wouldn't vote at all

 

[Blastus]

Direct action is indirect taxation. If you believe there is a pain free way of reducing emmisions you're a retard.

tony will take the carbon out one atom at a time.

 

[Chemical Ali]

The direct action plan is just a plot to funnel more taxpayer moneys to the Liebral's big coal overlords

 

[funkshen]

my coal overlords are little, and cute

 

[scuba_steve2121]

my coal overlords are little, and cute

NAWWWW that's cute!!!!!

Now can we burn him? i got some steaks to barbeque