View Single Post
Old 02-20-2009, 11:33 AM   #31
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
the "7% unemployed" have nothing to do with the issue of environmental protection.

as for costs, the favorable tax treatment soften that blow, and our economy can certainly use the investment in new technologies.

really, can't understand why anyone would be against the idea of reducing emissions, what you're saying is that you are a supporter of dirty air getting even more dirty....
I never said the 7% unemployed has anything to do with enviromental protection, only that the increased costs will adversely effect employment. Let's put it this way..the most effective method of cutting back greenhouse gases would be to put a 2.00/tax per gallon of gas. But doing so in this environment would be moronic...that is the the problem with pulling this little stunt now...and make energy MORE expensive is NOT going to stimulate the economy...Sorry..
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote