US House of Reps 2009 Climate Change Bill

[freo-1]

Originally Posted by F8L

Could you list the special interest groups please? I'm curious how they stack up against the current subsidies and "paybacks" we dole out to special interst groups on the other side of this issue.

Easy!

Simply read the 300 plus page amendment that was DROPPED on Congress at 3AM this Friday, and you will see EXACTLY some of the special interest vote buying that went on.

As I stated earlier, it's somewhat moot. The Senate will kill this, as they do not want to get voted out of office.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by freo-1

Easy!

Simply read the 300 plus page amendment that was DROPPED on Congress at 3AM this Friday, and you will see EXACTLY some of the special interest vote buying that went on.

As I stated earlier, it's somewhat moot. The Senate will kill this, as they do not want to get voted out of office.

And you've read it already?

[freo-1]

Originally Posted by F8L

And you've read it already?

They were showing one of the Congressmen reading the more salient points of the bill on CSPAN, so yes, I have heard some of the groups that are getting special treatment. BTW, that is BETTER than some of the clueless wonders in Congress, who routinely vote on 1000 plus page bills the do not even READ before they vote on.

Here is a link to the story:

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/20...se-filibuster/

[SageBrush]

I have, and it won't. I'm all too aware of the corruption that emission permits has allowed in the European version -- and will be even worse in the US version. That does not change two things, however:

1. Fossil fuel taxation is the only solution that will work, since taxation to cover the indirect costs of fossil fuel use (which is what is really needed for our market economy) ain't going to happen.

2. I think a fair argument that the benefits will outweigh the corruption can be made. A trillion dollars a year of wasted US wealth the way things are now is a *lot* of pork.

3. It's disingenous to say the European system 'failied' because of the inherent weaknesses of cap™ the weakness is European will to tighten carbon limits. That weakness, I will argue, is more a case of not willing to jump way ahead of the rest of world than anything else. When the US adds it's carbon limits to hte world economy, changes *will* happen.

Feel free to disagree with reasoned argument and data. But please, don't bore me with the "taxes are baaaaad" talking point.

[SageBrush]

First WSJ, then FoxNews. What more can be said ?

[freo-1]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

I have, and it won't. I'm all too aware of the corruption that emission permits has allowed in the European version -- and will be even worse in the US version. That does not change two things, however:

1. Fossil fuel taxation is the only solution that will work, since taxation to cover the indirect costs of fossil fuel use (which is what is really needed for our market economy) ain't going to happen.

2. I think a fair argument that the benefits will outweigh the corruption can be made. A trillion dollars a year of wasted US wealth the way things are now is a *lot* of pork.

3. It's disingenous to say the European system 'failied' because of the inherent weaknesses of cap™ the weakness is European will to tighten carbon limits. That weakness, I will argue, is more a case of not willing to jump way ahead of the rest of world than anything else. When the US adds it's carbon limits to hte world economy, changes *will* happen.

Feel free to disagree with reasoned argument and data. But please, don't bore me with the "taxes are baaaaad" talking point.

The talking point "Taxes are bad" is valid, whether you like it or not. Check out the history books. In 1961, JFK lowered taxes, and the economy took off from the recession of the late 50's.

What in the world makes you think "Cap and Tax" will work here when it failed in Europe? Besides, I don't see China and India "jumping on the bandwagon" anytime in the near future.

All "Cap and Tax" will achieve is a loss of manufacturing and business in the good old US of A. Business leaders have already testified before Congress that is the case.

If we were serious about this issue, nuclear power would have a resurgence. The US Congress is more interested in self serving interests than actually making long term beneficial decisions.

BTW, do you realize that the majority of power in the Northeast comes from Canada? If it was not for nuclear power, the US would be in big trouble.

[freo-1]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

First WSJ, then FoxNews. What more can be said ?

How about the Economist, mate? It's FAR more accurate than any of the loser US networks (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS). The US news is guilty of the SIN of OMISSION. They do not report items that will put their political point of view in a bad light. At least the UK tends to report all the facts (even if they support a different point of view).

I never realized just how bad US news reporting was until I lived overseas for a number of years. honestly, it's awful.

Besides, a very wise man one told me "If you want to get close to the truth, read the Financial mags. They do not have political axe to grind, they just want people to make money".


Lastly, let me state for the record that I'm a fiercely independent political thinker, and not tied to either major political party. So, my views are my own, based on life experience, and not tied to a party talking point (left or right).

[SageBrush]

Getting off topic, but I read Bloomberg, the Financial Times of london, Housmann (spelling?) most days. Perhaps oddly, I have gained a lot of general background information regarding energy from Slashdot of all places.

The Economist has too much slant for my taste. The editorial pages of the WSJ are a hack, and FoxNews is propaganda.

You think taxes are bad ? I think pollution, climate change, idiotic wars, and unregulated banking is bad. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and let the thread return to topic ?

[freo-1]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Getting off topic, but I read Bloomberg, the Financial Times of london, Housmann (spelling?) most days. Perhaps oddly, I have gained a lot of general background information regarding energy from Slashdot of all places.

The Economist has too much slant for my taste. The editorial pages of the WSJ are a hack, and FoxNews is propaganda.

You think taxes are bad ? I think pollution, climate change, idiotic wars, and unregulated banking is bad. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and let the thread return to topic ?

Slashdot, eh? I'll check it out.

I think we can agree to disagree. I don't think we are all that far off on the subject, but reasonable people can and do disagree about solutions.

Dialogue needs to remain open, honest, and respectful, otherwise, we can't learn.

BTW, I think the US mainstream media is ALL propaganda (including NPR).

[Frayadjacent]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

You think taxes are bad ? I think pollution, climate change, idiotic wars, and unregulated banking is bad. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and let the thread return to topic ?

Increasing taxation has a very tangible, quantifiable effect.

Pollution is subjective. Yeah, dumping raw waste into rivers is bad. I'm against that kind of pollution because it directly negatively affects others. There is a tangible, quantifiable effect.

Climate change, while it happens, is only theoretically caused by man. People have found correlations between CO2 emissions and climate, and then call it causation.

Unregulated banking? You mean the kind where institutions are forced to give loans to otherwise unqualified individuals as a result of legislation (CRA) and litigation (lawyers like 0bama suing banks for not giving enough loans to black people)? Those things didn't cause things like the housing bubble, now did they? People defaulting on mortgages couldn't be because they bought what they couldn't afford?

ANYWAY

The topic IS taxation, because this cap and trade scheme IS taxation. It's punishing something that hasn't been scientifically proven (don't talk about any 'consensus' here. The scientific method for proving a theory doesn't include getting a consensus) is just faulty logic.

The only specific effect that has been mentioned is $0.13 tax increase on a gallon of gas.

What happens when electric utilities, most of which in the US burn coal, have to buy massive amounts of 'carbon credits'? They pass the cost on to the consumers. Translation: Electric bills for many Americans go up. Not by a few cents, but buy a few multiples, possibly. I'm talking doubling. Tripling.

Think about your last electric bill. Think about your largest bill last summer. Mine was $180. That bill doubling will be VERY painful to my economy, but I can bear it. But what about my neighbors who don't make as much money as I do? They could be crushed.

What happens to large companies that consume a lot of power when they have to buy these carbon credits? They lay off people. They move operations overseas. They pass costs on to consumers. All of those are bad for the economy.

This bill is the most blaring example of the retards taking the wheel of the bus and steering it toward the closest cliff.