Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (10353)	7/1/2009 5:06:06 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

I am waiting for someone like Buffet who gave cover to the Obama idiocy during the campaign to come out and say they were wrong and Obama is crazy (or at least economically ignorant). Bob

To: Brumar89 who wrote (10353)	7/2/2009 9:58:37 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Nope. It is a huge tax. I have not seen any evidence to suggest whether it is a regressive or progressive tax, so unless Buffet and Limbaugh have access to empirical evidence that I have not seen, I suspect they are just voicing their opinions against the legislation using "regressive tax" in the vernacular. My opinion remains open on the characterization of the tax, but a tax it most indubitably is. Now for the flip side of the coin. The tax part is the cost or investment. The other part is the benefits that will accrue to the economy from conservation. It forces our economy to become a more efficient user of energy and to develop alternatives to coal and oil, which means our economy will be less reliant on fossil fuels and more diversified in our energy sources. The end state will be an economy that is more efficient and diversified, with a lower cost structure as the technology improves. Those benefits will far outweigh the initial investment.