/discuss

"/discuss"

Make me.

I'm sure a lot of families will be relieved to know that they'll only have to cough up another $800 a year for a silly plan that will accomplish nothing.

But this will cut into Algore's future earnings.

The economy is tanking.

People are losing jobs left and right.

Most of those remaining employed are doing so with pay-cuts/pay-freezes/layoffs/
etc. Home values have plummeted putting an awful lot of people upside down on their mortgages.

Unneccessarily increasing energy costs is not only stupid, but it's a recipe for disaster.

Affluence and increasing levels of wealth are what drive the desire for a cleaner environment - how anyone can categorize CO2 as "dirty" is beyond me, but that's a seperate issue. Put the cogs in place that result in the creation of wealth and a reduction of CO2 emmissions (if they truly are "bad") will happen naturally as people can afford to be better stewards of the environment.

This piece of legislation is an unmitigated disaster - it further hurts all of us and ZERO benefit is derived from this legislation.

EPA: Cap-and-Trade Bill Could Hurt U.S. Manufacturing, Send Factory Jobs Overseas

Obama and the Dems can't help themselves. Trying to fix everything that they think needs fixing, they will end up destroying our economy, decreasing the size of the pocketbooks of many if not all Americans. The Republicans will have an easy time in the next election cycle.

Weimar Republic, here we come.

'The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.'

The Obama legacy . . .

I think we are all in agreement that there will be price increases.
The only argument is how far off base the CBO will be with this particular prediction.
One thing I'm sure of is that no matter how far off base they are, there will be a Federal Subsidy to certain groups, creating an new "Energy Right" in America.
Having said that, how much will the Taxpayer be on the hook for to cover this "Right to Energy Entitlement"?
Expansion of power via a new voting block?
Nah, not this Gov't...Gummits only think in terms of what's best for the people, right?

Always glad to hear that my expenses will go up while my income continues to remain flat well actualy decrease in real dollars. I guess being a vegetarian who switched to all CFL light bulbs and drives an economic car only 2 miles a day isn't enough.

Oh well at least I don't have to worry about my kids future anymore it's pretty obvious they don't have one.

People might wonder why they are paying more for energy to supposedly cut greenhouse gases as the earth cools and they are freezing their asses off and shoveling snow off their solar panels.

I thought cap and trade meant using a condom.

If only Obama's dad had practiced "Cap and Trade"

Leftie Fact Check dot Org is right on top of things. "Cap-and-Trade Cost Inflation"
May 28, 2009

April 22, 2009
"On second thought, GOP cap-and-trade cost estimates on the money"
"and organizations from newspapers to Think Progress to MS-NBC and even the Wall Street Journal used his statement to call Republicans liars for the last several weeks."

"They may have to eat those words. Professor Reilly has rechecked his figures, and now he says that not only were the Republicans right after all, they actually underestimated the costs to the consumer."

"Once the government gets this money from energy production, they're going to keep it. That means that Reilly's final figure of $3900 per household is the correct number to use."

What basis do you have in saying that Fact Check dot Org is left leaning? They frequently skewer the dems.

$800 dollars? That's like one bag of arugula. You white people caused all these problems, NOW YOU HAVE TO PAY!!!

wait till you see how much money the U.N.will demand from us at the next kyoto treaty scam and guess the one country that will be strictly held to this scam?

Of course, doing nothing is a much better idea, right?

'You white people caused all these problems, NOW YOU HAVE TO PAY!!!'

That's the part you don't understand, the white people never pay. You might think we'll pay, but the white people are just so devious we off-load the cost to the polka dot colored people.

Or the Cyan, Magenta colored people.

The white people never pay. That's what that color entitles us to. We just lay around all day counting our money.

Penn and Teller had a good show on so called "Cap and Trade".

Cap and Trade is a load of shit, which originated in the minds of "Conservative" Republicans. A way for polluters to be paid, by you know who, for not polluting anymore. Thus the worst offenders reap the largest rewards. Another Classic Wall Street gangbanging scam.

and houston congressman gene green has been called a hero by waxman and the other dipshit
his district includes the houston ship channel ..home to 5 major refinaries and he got a small little exception on this for them but the fact remains....taxes will go up and just think

ADD them to the VAT that may be coming......

BOTH taxes waged against POOR PEOPLE.......

and they will STILL BE DUPED BY this guy
its just amazing............grace

Of course, doing nothing is a much better idea, right?

#18 | Posted by panchovilla

Just exactly what threat is it trying to avert?

If you are talking about 'global warming', the jury is still out that it is happening and that man has any affect on the climate.

If you want to piss a large pile of money down a rat hole, don't let me stop you but don't take my money at the point of a gun and add it to yours.

Cap and Trade is horrible legislation, driven by a ridiculous vision.

Global warming either is or is not happening.. and that's to be determined by science, not politicians, and newsflash.. the evidence isn't decisive.. there are those that think we're entering a period of global cooling.. there is certainly not enough evidence to push this agenda.

Climate change may or may not be caused by human activities... again, conflicting evidence on this.. probably more than anything else, this points out american, including politicians, ignorance of math.

The percentages of CO2 that are man made in the atmosphere are minuscule... and even the wackos pushing this claim that the US acting alone will have literally zero effect on this amount..

To commit economic suicide as a nation, and trust me, China and India are not going to do their own cap and trade policies.. is a failure of leadership. Especially when the evidence to support the doomsday scenerios that Gore and his band of merry idiots preach isn't there.

This could well be the most damaging thing that the election of Barack Obama will do to the nation.. way above nominated activist judges. Write your congressional reps, repubicans and dems, and insist that they oppose Cap and Trade.. otherwise, the nuts win, and the nation loses. (and despite evidence to the contrary here on Drudge.. all democrats are not nuts)

If there is global warming, how did so much snow and ice build up over the bomber that landed on Greenland during the second world war? 260 feet below the surface is where it was found.

Global warming either is or is not happening.. and that's to be determined by science, not politicians,

just THIS WEEK when asked by joe barton about what he knew was in HIS OWN BILL...waxman said that he didnt know everything in the bill...that he has left a lot of that up to 'scientist'

so you see.....there ARE Scientist who are going to raise your taxes...I dont remember voting for any of them..

It's more like Dunce Cap and Trade---

The mechanism for mitigation proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill is a "cap and trade" plan. The idea is quite simple: The government sets a fixed annual limit to total carbon-dioxide emissions and distributes ration cards for the right to emit a portion of this amount (that's the "cap"); it also allows those who receive ration cards to sell them (that's the "trade"). Now, "distributes" is an artfully chosen word: How would the government decide who gets the ration cards? One method is to sell them; another is to give them away, theoretically based on some objective criterion such as historical emissions, but in practice more likely based on campaign contributions. Waxman-Markey doesn't specify how the distributing is to be accomplished. The Obama administration expects to sell ration cards, bringing the government $80 billion a year in revenue over the next decade. This revenue represents a cost increase for more or less any company that uses lots of fossil-fuel energy in one way or another (i.e., most of the economy). Like all raw-material cost increases, these will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. So in reality this is a backdoor tax on energy that conscripts private companies into being collection agents.

More--

I've had to rely on informal studies and back-of-envelope calculations to do this cost/benefit analysis. Why haven't advocates and sponsors of the proposal done their own? Why are they urging Congress to make an incredible commitment of resources without even cursory analysis of the economic consequences? The answer should be obvious: This is a terrible deal for American taxpayers.

...

Clarity about costs and benefits is the enemy of the Waxman-Markey proposal. To get drawn into the details of tweaking allowance schedules or emissions limits, in the hope of avoiding the appearance of obstructionism, is a sucker play. No amount of tinkering is going to change the fundamental reality that even a perfect implementation of the Waxman-Markey concept is a very poor economic deal for Americans. The alternative should not be tax-based or rationing-based efforts to make energy more expensive, but a targeted research program to provide insurance against unanticipated and unpredictable consequences. At the other extreme, to make this an argument about climate science by attacking the global scientific establishment, or to engage in a debate about worldviews and socialism that is, to operate on a high rhetorical plane is also a sucker play, because it allows advocates of Waxman-Markey to continue to avoid the hard issue of costs and benefits. We should keep coming back to one practical question: What do we pay, and what do we get?

In the end we, the consumer, will always bare the cost if implemented. Just like taxes on corporations, it will be factored into the bill for goods or services.

'If key provisions are enacted' is code word for 'I hope I'm right and don't quote me on this'.

When have any of you seen a GOVERNMENT projection of cost, or anything else for that matter, come out to be true, or even close? I haven't yet, but then I'm only 64 years old.

Besides that 'ONLY $800.00' means squat in this environment where the tax load on the unemployed will be astronomical WITH NO WAY FOR IT TO BE PAID!

Remember 'the unemployment rate will be one of the last measures of an improving economy to turn around'!

Seems to me that anything concerning this economy and our future should be formulated through bi-partisan committees that include outside experts from all impacted fields. Let committees be formed regionally to formulate overall recommendations for recommended courses of action in the various arenas, let these recommendations then be submitted to the President AND congress for further concideration and action/disposition.

Aw, what the hell, do it piece-meal, again!

It seems to me that we all agree that cap and trade will be a tax increase. All we are argueing over is how much. If the poor folks get a tax credit for it, then you rich ass holes (over $50k per year) will pay it all.

Factcheck shows us that the scare tactics from the right are bull shit but....how many more times will these same liars continue to make the same claims...how many more right wing posters right here will still post the disproven lies???

I've come to the conclusion that, if it is posted by a rightie...it is bull shit. They are incapable of telling the truth. I don'[t believe a single word they say about anything.

As Murphy probably knows, and may have already discussed, Climate Control under the forthcoming U.N. Mandates is even more dreadful.

The U.N. Mandates, among other things, would usurp U.S. Sovereignty by:

1. allowing a non-U.S. entity the power and authority to directly tax U.S. citizens. In direct competition with the Legislative Branches of our Federal, State, and Local Governments (expressly granted this authority in their respective Constitutions).

2. granting power to the U.N. to mandate, and attempt to control, natural resource consumption across the globe such that, some richer industrial countries will be required to relocate a portion of their industrial bases to poorer developing countries.

3. granting power to the U.N. to impose disincentives like tariffs on products not meeting new Green manufacturing guidelines. Also the power to grant incentives to makers of so-called Green products (I wonder who gets to decide what Green is? Any guesses on how they decide? Is there any room for corruption you can see here?)

Here's the best part about all of this!

The majority of the tax money generated through new Green Controls will be spent on things having NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE (assuming that is even needed, or indeed, even possible).

United Nations Climate Change documents:

"The U.N. Mandates, among other things, would usurp U.S. Sovereignty by:"

I'm not a lawyer but I looked through your documents and can't find where we give up any sovereignity. Posting a bunch of documents from the UN proves nothing. NOw, if you want to actually read them yourself and find the pertinent paragraphs I'd be happy to read them. Meanwhile...yawn.

Danni, Cap and Trade will cause the cost of everything you buy to go up because it takes energy to make them and energy to transport them.. I don't care if you are buying tires for your car or a box of tampons, everything will go up. And by the way everything you ever bought in your life was at one point transported on a truck. Name one thing that will not go up in price and name anyone who will not end up paying for it. This is nothing but Global Socialism the thin facade of environmentalism.

Danni, Cap and Trade will cause the cost of everything you buy to go up because it takes energy to make them and energy to transport them.. I don't care if you are buying tires for your car or a box of tampons, everything will go up. And by the way everything you ever bought in your life was at one point transported on a truck. Name one thing that will not go up in price and name anyone who will not end up paying for it. This is nothing but Global Socialism the thin facade of environmentalism.

I've come to the conclusion that, if it is posted by a rightie...it is bull shit. They are incapable of telling the truth. I don'[t believe a single word they say about anything.

#32 | Posted by danni

What part of my post #31 is not correct? Where in the hell do you ever come up with the idea that you want all these government programs and they are going to be free to you? Tax the corps. Shit. You willpay every penny of that tax.

I'm not a lawyer but I looked through your documents and can't find where we give up any sovereignity. Posting a bunch of documents from the UN proves nothing.

#34 | Posted by danni

If it is a treaty we have signed, it would. If it's not a treaty it won't.

Article Six of the United States Constitution

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

It's that "all Treaties made shall be the supreme Law of the Land" thing that will get you every time. That is why the Kyoto Protocol was so derisive. Many countries signed on with no intent to actually comply with the protocol but if we had and not complied we would have violated our own constitution. How long do you think the greens and ACLU would have taken to start suing the government over that?