10
   

D.C. GOP Fights Bag Tax, Lose, Demonstrate No Understanding of Irony.

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:52 am
@Setanta,
No.

Not this time anyway.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:54 am
@ehBeth,
another good source for the more solid reusable bags - thrift stores - they tend to sell them in bundles of 2 - 5 for about $1 canajun. I don't care if I'm carrying around advertising for some event I've never heard of - as long as their shopping bag is solid, I'm using it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:03 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

The irony is this...

The purpose of the disposable bag tax is to get people to use reusable bags (which are far better for the environment; something that liberals care about).

The Republican way to protest the bag tax is to produce reusable bags.

When the protest against the tax does exactly what the tax was intended to do-- how is this not irony?

The Republicans don't want to pay a tax. They sell a reusable bag that allows their partisans to avoid paying the tax. How is that irony?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:07 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

ebrown p wrote:

The irony is this...

The purpose of the disposable bag tax is to get people to use reusable bags (which are far better for the environment; something that liberals care about).

The Republican way to protest the bag tax is to produce reusable bags.

When the protest against the tax does exactly what the tax was intended to do-- how is this not irony?

The Republicans don't want to pay a tax. They sell a reusable bag that allows their partisans to avoid paying the tax. How is that irony?


The ironic part is that this is the entire point of the tax. The Republicans are protesting the decision by engaging in the desired behavior.

Cycloptichorn
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:08 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:

The Republicans don't want to pay a tax. They sell a reusable bag that allows their partisans to avoid paying the tax. How is that irony?


Isn't there a sales tax on the bag?
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The ironic part is that this is the entire point of the tax. The Republicans are protesting the decision by engaging in the desired behavior.

I don't see any Republicans arguing that the tax won't spur people to use reusable bags. If they did, and then started selling reusable bags of their own, then it would be ironic. But nobody's making that argument, as far as I know. The GOPers aren't saying that the tax is ineffective, they're just saying that they don't want to pay it, and their solution is perfectly aligned with their position.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:17 pm
@ebrown p,
I'll assume that's another one of your "jokes."
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The ironic part is that this is the entire point of the tax. The Republicans are protesting the decision by engaging in the desired behavior.

I don't see any Republicans arguing that the tax won't spur people to use reusable bags. If they did, and then started selling reusable bags of their own, then it would be ironic. But nobody's making that argument, as far as I know. The GOPers aren't saying that the tax is ineffective, they're just saying that they don't want to pay it, and their solution is perfectly aligned with their position.


Oh, I completely agree. But it's so counter to the typical Republican response to Dem initiatives. Usually when Dems pass a plan, the Republicans do everything they can to not comply with it. Now, they are doing everything they can to COMPLY with it.

The whole point of the tax is that people don't want to pay it. They are essentially agreeing with the Dem position.

Cycloptichorn
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Republicans complaining endlessly about taxes and then not paying them hardly qualifies as a "man bites dog" type of story. The only twist here is that the bag tax is clearly intended to influence behavior rather than raise revenue, but then that just puts the bag tax into an already enormous category of tax measures that are primarily intended to encourage "positive" social choices. It's not much of a surprise, though, to discover that Republican behavior is influenced in a way that Democratic lawmakers intended when they passed the tax. I don't see that as Republicans agreeing with Democrats.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:37 pm
@joefromchicago,
More like dismissive "sarcasm".
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:39 pm
@ebrown p,
You'll have to work on that too.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:45 pm
@joefromchicago,
... the point being that this story made some of us chuckle and you are taking this thread way too seriously.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:47 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Republicans complaining endlessly about taxes and then not paying them hardly qualifies as a "man bites dog" type of story. The only twist here is that the bag tax is clearly intended to influence behavior rather than raise revenue, but then that just puts the bag tax into an already enormous category of tax measures that are primarily intended to encourage "positive" social choices. It's not much of a surprise, though, to discover that Republican behavior is influenced in a way that Democratic lawmakers intended when they passed the tax. I don't see that as Republicans agreeing with Democrats.


Who cares whether they 'agree' or not? They are engaging in the desired behavior. If Republicans are going to respond to Dem initiatives by engaging in the desired behavior, I could give two shits whether they agree with the rationale or not.

Cycloptichorn
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Who cares whether they 'agree' or not?

Uh, you did.

Cycloptichorn, just a little while ago, wrote:
The whole point of the tax is that people don't want to pay it. They are essentially agreeing with the Dem position.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:54 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Who cares whether they 'agree' or not?

Uh, you did.

Cycloptichorn, just a little while ago, wrote:
The whole point of the tax is that people don't want to pay it. They are essentially agreeing with the Dem position.



Fine; I'll use the word 'complying' instead. There is no substantial difference; the end result is the desired one.

I agree with the above poster, that your nitpicking misses the point of the entire thread.

Cycloptichorn
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree with the above poster, that your nitpicking misses the point of the entire thread.

There's always that possibility, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But I think the point of the thread is that the Republicans are somehow being inconsistent on this issue, and I just don't think they are. Of course, if TKO would come back and explain why he created this thread, then maybe we could get a clearer idea of what his point was. That is, unless you are TKO, in which case I defer to your better-informed judgment.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 01:01 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree with the above poster, that your nitpicking misses the point of the entire thread.

There's always that possibility, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But I think the point of the thread is that the Republicans are somehow being inconsistent on this issue, and I just don't think they are. Of course, if TKO would come back and explain why he created this thread, then maybe we could get a clearer idea of what his point was. That is, unless you are TKO, in which case I defer to your better-informed judgment.


Oh yeah, I forgot about that!

The point isn't that the Republicans are being inconsistent, it's that their Consistency has played right into the hands of the Democrats. They essentially used the Republican consistency against them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 03:38 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree with the above poster, that your nitpicking misses the point of the entire thread.

There's always that possibility, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But I think the point of the thread is that the Republicans are somehow being inconsistent on this issue, and I just don't think they are. Of course, if TKO would come back and explain why he created this thread, then maybe we could get a clearer idea of what his point was. That is, unless you are TKO, in which case I defer to your better-informed judgment.

sorry, had to log out of my Cyclo account... Hang on, I'm switching hats...

Joe, the irony here is that...

When you examine the conservative belief that less taxes are better, it is supported by the argument that people are better of and happier when they have more of their money. A real conservative stance that would have made sense would have been to not blow a bunch of money on ultra expensive bags, but rather to encourage people who don't support the fee to simply buy the cheep reusable bags that were already available. This stance would have protected the consumer from the fee they object to, and kept more money in the consumers pocket (the original rationale for hate hate hating taxes). Instead, for the for price of one bag (and you know when you go shopping you only buy enough stuff to fit in one bag), you could simply pay the fee and have up to 500 bags. Basically, it's stupid because the bag takes forever to pay itself off, when you could get 5 reusable bags for the same price which their combined volume would actually be practical and would pay for themselves in a much shorter time.

The irony is when you zoom out on the party that likes to think of itself as being fiscally conservative, they seem to only know how to waste money opposing good ideas and in the end using the ideas (like using a reusable bag) to combat a liberal idea (like using a reusable bag).

Money from this is supposed to go to cleaning the Anacostia river, and in the end the GOP bag's price was basically a donation the GOP.

Does the GOP hate the environment so much that they want to prevent any money from getting to projects like this (that also ironically would classify as infrastructure improvements and help raise the property values in South East DC)?

The GOP doesn't seem to care about being wrong, they just want to try and prevent the Dems from being right.

T
K
O
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:39 pm
@Green Witch,
Green Witch wrote:

This is like Walmart who is now (in some parts of the country) charging 5 cents per bag.

Stop and Shop charges 5 cents per plastic bag. They also discount 5 cents per plastic bag not used if you bring in your own reusable bag instead.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 01:19 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
Joe, the irony here is that...

When you examine the conservative belief that less taxes are better, it is supported by the argument that people are better of and happier when they have more of their money.

OK, so far so good.

Diest TKO wrote:
A real conservative stance that would have made sense would have been to not blow a bunch of money on ultra expensive bags, but rather to encourage people who don't support the fee to simply buy the cheep reusable bags that were already available.

No, not if the bags that they're buying serve multiple purposes. The bags not only hold groceries, but they display the owner's displeasure about the bag tax and affiliation with the GOP, and the price of the bag includes a donation to the party. Now, if the GOP was just selling plain bags for $30 a pop, I suppose I'd question the wisdom of that, but even then I don't think it would be ironic. Just baffling.

Diest TKO wrote:
This stance would have protected the consumer from the fee they object to, and kept more money in the consumers pocket (the original rationale for hate hate hating taxes). Instead, for the for price of one bag (and you know when you go shopping you only buy enough stuff to fit in one bag), you could simply pay the fee and have up to 500 bags. Basically, it's stupid because the bag takes forever to pay itself off, when you could get 5 reusable bags for the same price which their combined volume would actually be practical and would pay for themselves in a much shorter time.

Well, again, that's only true if the bag were just a bag. Instead, it's a political statement as well as a bag. You might as well say that someone who pledges $50 to the local PBS station and gets a reusable shopping bag as a thank-you gift is stupid because she could buy 1000 disposable shopping bags for that price.

Diest TKO wrote:
The irony is when you zoom out on the party that likes to think of itself as being fiscally conservative, they seem to only know how to waste money opposing good ideas and in the end using the ideas (like using a reusable bag) to combat a liberal idea (like using a reusable bag).

Money from this is supposed to go to cleaning the Anacostia river, and in the end the GOP bag's price was basically a donation the GOP.

Exactly. I'm sure the buyers are well aware that they are, in effect, donating all of that money to the GOP. But then what's wrong with people donating money to causes they believe in?

Diest TKO wrote:
Does the GOP hate the environment so much that they want to prevent any money from getting to projects like this (that also ironically would classify as infrastructure improvements and help raise the property values in South East DC)?

It's rather simplistic to suggest that, because the Republicans disagree with you on the best way to save the environment, that they therefore hate the environment. That's rather like saying that, because you love your mother and hate your enemies, it must follow that your enemies hate their mothers.
 

Related Topics

THE THEIST OBSESSION . . . - Question by Setanta
Graffiti wall is vandalised - Discussion by Robert Gentel
According to American Scientist... - Discussion by McGentrix
"God does not play dice": - Discussion by dinogruppuso
How do online shops know ... - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Writing websites - Question by elenipissa25
Is your window clean? - Discussion by IRFRANK
Ain't It The Truth - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Public relations firm - Discussion by raja12
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 03:20:04