If the morons tax energy as part of their global climate scam of the multi-millenium, many people won't be able to afford to heat their homes in the usual clean burning natural gas, propane, or oil fired kinda way (25% used credit cards last year to pay for heating bills), so they'll burn all the wood in sight to keep from freezing.
Gee, won't that put a lot more carbon in the atmosphere ? And remove a lot of trees from the environment ?
Par for the friggin course for stupid dumb ass liberals.
Of course this is very intelligent and makes perfect sense to us, Kid. Which is why the liberal tree hugging ass hats and al gore sycophants don't get it.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt they'll figure that out and tax wood burning by cubic foot or ash output or smoke released. Don't give them any ideas, damn it!
ReplyDeleteUnintended consequences, don't you see...
ReplyDeleteThe liberals don't see to many; til it bites them in the political ass's! After hurting a lot of poor people.
Thanks Bunni.
ReplyDeleteSnarky, Good advice.
They Say. That reminds me that Madeline Notsobright's favorite excuse for not doing anything about anything (except working to disarm America) was being afraid of 'unintended consequences'.
Unintended consequences only are a worry to the unprepared and unintelligent.
And yes, this will hurt a lot of poor people. Which is why it will probably never happen. That's their voting base. Yea, they could subsidize the poor, but I don't see that happening either in this economy.
At the rate the fed is printing (and devaluing) money, people will be burning it by the wagonload to heat their homes.
ReplyDeleteAnother great point Arby.
ReplyDeleteHow low can she go ?
I love a crackling fire!
ReplyDeleteit reminds me of their banning controlled burning in cali. now whatta they got? uncontrolled burning. that chart is scary.
ReplyDeleteWood burning is already on the increase in the UK - it does smell wonderful but I agree it will release a whole lot of carbon dioxide into the air.
ReplyDeleteHigher energy prices do encourage people to get better home insulation, install solar panels, replace single-glazed with sealed double-glazed windows etc etc (and wear a sweater!!). If government can offer grants to help pay for these things then that has to be a good thing IMO.
I worry about the elderly poor who face energy bills that make up a huge proportion of their income. They should be receiving discounts not extra taxation.
CambridgeLady, Thanks for stopping by. I was merely trying to point out that the liberals rarely see beyond their contact lenses when making plans and enacting legislation - at least in the USA.
ReplyDeleteHere in the US, the people I'm talking about don't have money to improve their homes.
And I'm certainly not worried about CO2 as that is food for the plant life and the atmosphere currently only has less than 6 tenths of 1 percent as it is.
As far as the elderly in the UK, why should someone else pay their energy bill? Why should not the energy companies be allowed to find ways to provide affordable energy? In the US, that would mean drilling around our own shores, using coal, using breeder reactors that consume their own fuel so there is no nuclear waste, etc, etc.
Jimmy Carter created the Department of Energy back in the late 1970's. It's mission was to reduce and hopefully eliminate the need for foreign sources of energy, mostly oil.
After trillions of dollars have been spent, and hundreds of billions per year today, that I as a taxpayer have to work to pay for, this department which has hundreds of thousands of full time employees and thousands of consultants has accomplished Zero after 3 decades and change.
And I guarantee you, the people who force this nonsense on us, like Al Gore, live quite comfortably without having to don a sweater in their house - He lives in a 10,000 plus sq foot home in Tennessee and flies around on an old jet that wastes a lot of fuel.
This is how it is with liberals. Their restrictions on us do not apply to them. They are not to be inconvenienced.
Opus. Me too. We use our fireplace to some extent.
ReplyDeleteLabcat. yea, save every bush and then deal with massive wild fires that can't be controlled and burn down your houses so the rest of us can help pay for it in our own home insurance premiums.
Hi The_Kid. Thanks for your reply. I fully appreciate that many people don't have money for home improvements - that's when government can step in with grants to cover the cost. It works pretty well here and in mainland Europe.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course no-one should have their energy bills subsidised, elderly or not, but I don't want to see people freezing if the temperature plummets. Thats nothing to do with ideology .... just compassion.
I'd love the energy companies to be able to find ways of being able to provide cheaper energy! They are all privatised in the UK now .... have been for a while ....... so I expect they are working on it as we speak ....... ho hum .......
Cap and tax, health care reform, whatever. These moves by the left are just the latest innovations to grab dough from the taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteThey don't care how they or their policies look to reasonable people, as long as the revenue continues to stream into their piggy bank (aka the general fund). And most of their shennanigans are foisted on us quite a ways out from any general election, so that the typical Obama/Democrat voter completely forgets their actions and simply watches the doom and gloom political ads on TV depicting evil Republicans wanting to kick their grandmothers out of the nursing home and into the street.
It's worked for them so far, why would they change anything?
Fredd, Thanks for stopping by. I agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, they don't care how their policies look to reasonable people because reasonable people do not make up a majority by any means.
CambridgeLady,
ReplyDeleteJust call me Kid if you wish.
Well, exceptions for everything of course Mademoiselle.
Glad to hear of the privatization.
If it were only those truly in need because of physical or other handicap, age, whatever, our respective countries could take care of them without batting an eye to be sure.
In the US, we have a large population of people who intentionally game the system and live like parasites. Way too many.
Someone early on (Ben Franklin?) said that when enough people discover they can vote themselves free money, the American system will cease to exist.
And it's been a good system, lasting longer than any other in recorded history but it is in serious danger with the liberals in majority power and the conservatives without even a candidate to run in 2012.
I believe people need struggle and it's associated accomplishment to feel great about themselves and get the most that life has to offer. The happiest most content people are those who work hard and benefit from the fruits of their labor. Me for example.
People willing to stagnate, accepting handouts from the government when they don't need to, are very unhappy and will become servants.
I promise you the people in the USA who are the most upset with government and who are the most unhappy in general are those on the dole of government or otherwise stagnating for whatever reason.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Kid, Yes we have parasites that play the system. I despise them because they are lazy, don't contribute to society (which I still believe in) and they tar the people who are genuinely in need with the same brush.
ReplyDeleteWe can all agree on that.
I fear that if the welfare state is removed then Britain will revert to a situation where people are reliant on charity or family if they fall upon hard times. The latter is a nice idea - relying on family - but not everyone has a supportive or close family network, increasingly so in the modern age.
I agree with the principals of personal responsibility and I would be ashamed if I had to rely on the state if I were able-bodied and jobs were available. I just feel uneasy with the idea of people requiring food handouts or becoming homeless because of medical bills, for example.
We all want a well-functioning nation with people working and contributing and prospering. I think we're on the same side - even if we disagree with how to achieve the best result. :)
CambridgeLady, Well I said "If it were only those truly in need because of physical or other handicap, age, whatever, our respective countries could take care of them without batting an eye to be sure."
ReplyDeleteWhich I intended to mean that we "the state through taxation" can easily take care care of those who truly need it. I have no problem with that at all.