Posted by Bill Ward on April 13, 2011, 4:40 am
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:57:10 -0700, Bob F wrote:
Are you saying all tax-supported services are subsidies? It sounds like
a new use of the term "subsidy". To me, "subsidy" refers to the
government using taxpayer money to promote services not enumerated in the
Constitution. Wind turbines, solar cells, fuel cells, electric vehicles,
CFL lamps, shower flow restrictors and limiting toilet flush capacities
are some of those items that jump to mind.
It seems ludicrous to me to pretend using taxes to promote those
unnecessary services is as valid as providing a national defense and
justice system, or paying the the expenses of other enumerated powers in
The Interstate Commerce clause has been way overloaded, and will need to
be corrected very soon.
Whining, "But Mom, everybody else is doing it...", is seldom a good
argument for anything.
Posted by rasterspace on April 13, 2011, 4:50 am
rather than a carbon tax, which I and others favor
over the cap&trade arbitrage schemes,
a tarriff on imported energy would be quite republican;
just don't as a Republican, what a republic is supposed to be.
Posted by rasterspace on April 13, 2011, 5:46 am
they almost never actually know,
in a historical sense, what republicanism is;
take from a recovering LaRouchiac!
Posted by rasterspace on April 13, 2011, 5:48 am
While the IPCC and its boy scouts present wilder and wilder sea level
predictions for the near future, the real observational facts
demonstrate that sea level has remained virtually stable for the last
Posted by Melodie de l'Epine on April 14, 2011, 9:51 am
Le 13/04/11 06:40, Bill Ward a crit :
Well, if "life" is poisoned by pollution to such a point that "life" is
in danger, then subsidising pollution-reducing alternatives seems to be
legitimate, just as legitimate as justice systems or defense systems
(because if you're dead because of respiratory failure due to a
pollution high, your just as dead as if you got shot by a robber or
bombed by a foreign nation...)