Alex talks with attorney and author Christopher C. Horner, a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mr. Horner has represented CEI as well as scientists and members of the US House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts including the Supreme Court. He writes for legal and industrial trade journals and online opinion pages. Mr. Horner is the author of two best-selling books: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, which spent half of 2007 on the New York Times bestseller list. His latest book is Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America. cei.org www.infowars.com www.priosnplanet.tv
@masercot I see. What of the stated and expressed desire for increased gun control, health policy control, and further international military police exercises made by heads of state, many highly influential persons within both public and private sectors, including current members of the administration?
Jones, and others, point to documents where (generally not in such terms as is used, granted) those people do call for increased spending and increasingly centralized control over many things.
@masercot Or, to put it another way… if you heard someone, or read an article by them, calling for the redistribution of all of your (by economic or social class, not necessarily you specifically) wealth to themselves, and they held a position of power capable of carrying that out, would you not consider it a possibility, if not even a likelihood?
Sometimes Jones’ and others’ claims seem to be exaggerated, other times they might even fall short. Yet there’s enough credibility to support most
@masercot Fair enough. Though, of course, it is only a “scare” tactic if, presuming the same people remain in power, taxes and the cost of living overall do not in fact rise. Obviously, if the “prediction” holds true, than it is warning, rather than fear mongering.
That said, presuming it is merely a scare tactic, to say of an opponent “they’ll raise taxes!” is not limited to NeoCons, and has existed before that faction. But I do understand more of where your coming from.
@tsenzei Obama called for the complete redistribution of wealth for a particular class? I’d be interested in seeing that in context…
@masercot You realize that was a hypothetical example? Though he has supported the redistribution of wealth from people and small banks to banks “too big to fail.” Not a “complete” of course but…
Business owners are already having a portion of their wealth redistributed to insurance companies thanks to mandatory health insurance; which is to be enforced in part by the IRS. In general, spending continues to rise; that money will need to come from somewhere eventually, if not this Presidency.
@tsenzei Now, you are being insincere. Wealth, by its nature, is constantly redistributed. In the case that you cite, it is being redistributed from the very wealthy to the very wealthy, hardly what you are talking about with Obama, I would guess…
@masercot I’m not being insincere at all. Wealth is not merely being redistributed from the “very wealthy” to the “very wealthy.” Business owners are not all “very wealthy” small banks are not all “very wealthy” people are not all “very wealthy.” This is either an incorrect assumption brought on by your ignorance, or an intentional deception.
Even IF that were the case, it would still be a consolidation of wealth, removing others from being “wealthy” to make others have even greater wealth.
@masercot Wealth transfers naturally, yes, but that is not what I’m referring to, nor is it what others refer to when discussing “redistribution.” The difference between natural and otherwise, is that laws and force are used to move wealth, rather than as a natural part of trade or the market, often regardless of the constituents’ input. It’s the difference between buying a new car, and being forced to buy a car whether you want or need one, and being told how much to pay.
@masercot Here’s a non-hypothetical example: Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade creates Market Derivatives, but it does so by putting a fee or tax (thus creating value) upon the substance to be effected. Members of the current administration and legislature have proposed that such a system be put upon Carbon Dioxide, something that most living animals exhale, that plants consume, and that plays a role in almost every aspect of human life, production, etc. Further proposed is that large, (tb Cont.)
@tsenzei (cont., Cap and Trade) within the initially proposed Cap and Trade legislation (I’ve not checked to see if its still in current versions) proposed that most large (and favored) companies get “free” credits that they could then trade on the market. However, smaller companies, individuals, and unfavored companies would not receive those credits, needing to purchase them in order to be “allowed” to do certain functions, such as production, owning a large house, etc.
@tsenzei While that may not be an income tax, it is still a tax, and one that the administration and many legislators supported by the administration, have sought.
@masercot Mandating insurance, again, is not limited to affecting the “very wealthy” either. (As a side question, what is your definition of “very wealthy” anyway?) It affects everyone, except arguably, those that are already very poor, and un- or self-employed. Workers get hired less, paid less by employers trying to meet the mandate. Employers lose money trying to meet the mandate, and insurance companies can raise their prices because they know people have to buy their product.
@masercot It seems to me, that you are “stuck” on partisan ideas. You say that anyone decrying perceived increases in taxes (right or wrong) is a “NeoCon” when that is clearly a generalization, and an incorrect one. If we were to take aspects of the NeoCon policies, and say that anyone who shares even one of those is a NeoCon, than I’d be forced to say that President Obama is a NeoCon as well, as he continues to support the War, Extraordinary Rendition, unwarranted surveillance, and PATRIOT.
@tsenzei You call it a tax, but in reality, it is an enforcement device, albeit a very capitalistic one. You know Obama was accused of advocating “redistribution of the wealth”, so your example wasn’t hypothetical. In fact, he advocated no such thing when the remark is left in its original context…
@tsenzei Obama is not a liberal; however, he is definitely the product of the mess he was handed, foreign policy-wise. Note that he is NOT supporting the made up war with Iraq so much as the real war against Al Qaeda. Even that, though, I feel is overblown. I think that I am pretty sane when it comes to politics. Have I offended you in some way?
@tsenzei Your argument is nearly identical to the one made against raising minimum wage. In the end, there were no job losses because people still need work to be done. Ultimately, the government is going to pay for the health care of the uninsured as evidenced by the fact that we pay more per capita than any other nation…
@masercot Minimum wage increases and mandatory health insurance are two very different things.
Increased wages going to people means they can also buy more things. While this is somewhat true of insurance as well… it is a far more centralized program. Money would flow to insurance, rather than workers, and with more centralized funds, the “need” to purchase is less. It makes sense in the short term for a large company to horde funds to satisfy it’s directors, and make its CEO look good.
@masercot I would, however, point out that you are being somewhat insincere in saying that there were “no job losses.” While the impact was likely less than many claimed as far as unemployment… there were people who had to be cut, or have reduced hours, or replaced by new employees that they’d pay less (where appropriate). It has also encouraged outsourcing (lack of job growth) and hiring under the table for less. Regardless, there are enough differences that I believe the new is worse.
@masercot Even if I am wrong, and the bill has no adverse effects short or long term, which I doubt, but I’ll grant is a slim possibility, it doesn’t mean I’m a NeoCon or a fool to voice my opinion on the matter, nor does it mean that for anyone else.
@masercot “Support” is relative between the two engagements. He is, however, still providing support to the Iraq war, ordering further mercenary groups in as replacements for troops he’s moving to Afghanistan, and maintaining an indefinite timeline for a military presence and simply renaming it “police.” I’m a very difficult person to offend, and the type to argue a point till I’m blue in the face, then go for a round of beers with whomever I was debating. I’m not sure why you thought I was.
@masercot “Redistribution of all wealth” from one “class” to a specific un-named group was the hypothetical example, as it is a SIMILAR (but not the same) accusation.
You call it an enforcement device, but it is in reality, a tax. It is similar to extra taxes on smoking, which are imposed to try and get people to stop smoking (didn’t really work, but that was the intent), but it is far more broad, as it covers all levels of production. Indeed, many argue that it should apply to reproduction.
@masercot What it may come down to, is that we will agree to disagree, and whomever it turns out is ultimately correct, will find out if and when the legislation passes the bills. Of course, if the language of certain portions are changed enough, I may simply change my own thoughts on the matter, but we’ll see.
However, the bill as was, largely had the support of the administration. You are free to view it differently, but I think that your interpretation is incorrect on certain levels.
@masercot I would also add that the administration has not only continued those “wars” but seems to be looking to expand them, taking greater aggressive postures toward N. Korea, and seeking aggressive action against Iran. Even if the entire issue about taxes is wrong, which I still doubt, though I appreciate your arguments, there’s already enough of an idea of fear because of those possibilities. Of course that possibility of war, I would think, is not entirely up to the US administration.
@tsenzei I’d guess that you aren’t a neocon; however, in most cases the first response to any political comment I make is a frenzied allusion to homosexuality or feces or an indictment of my patriotism. You, my friend, are not the rule, but the exception…
@tsenzei They are continuing the “wars” and I do disagree with this. The Iraq war was based upon lies, so why are we still there? It was political when Bush invaded and political when Obama stayed. It has nothing to do with defense. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan and always has been…